Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ron Paul Fans

you're probably correct Bob, that you've not started many of the Paul threads and I'm certainly willing to take you at your word, I know you're an honorable man.

but you do seem to relish in taking shots at Paul and to be frank I just don't get it, you're a bright guy, you read, and I cannot fathom how anyone that has any interest in history and how the world works does not understand that the danger for our country comes from within, far more likelihood of destroying the life we've inherited because we've squandered our financial resources because we don't elect leaders but politicians.

I've given up on the dumbazz half of the country that voted for Obama, as many have said, "it ain't the first time we've had a socialist run for office, just the first time we've had enough morons to elect an avowed and obvious socialist"


but I certainly haven't given up on guys like you, how in hades for the love of god my man, do you see any greater threat to the supremacy of the USA as the squandering of our wealth this last generation or so?

the crumble from within is far more insidious and dangerous than the threats outside our border, though valid many of them are. At least if history is any guide.


I can tell you from looking at him and hearing him speak Paul is far more pacifist than I could ever be. Hell I'd give anything if a John Wayne type was espousing the need for fiscal sanity.


I've seen no other candidate give much more than token lip service to our looming budget crisis and adherence to the Constitution unless they're speaking to an audience that is largely Tea Party types.


stop and think about it for just a sec Bob, the wealthiest nation BY FAR the planet has ever seen, and with all their wealth they can't run the country to provide the needed functions for their populace without running deficits????


we're fast approaching the point that it doesn't matter what your sacred cow is whether defense, homeland security, whatever, that we will be able to afford it.

hell they've already eroded the largest portion of the worth of the dollar by inflating the money supply!




you guys get stuck on Paulistas, Paultards, RPeers, whatever when all along it's been explained it ain't the man it's the message.


you talk about electability and I get that, I'll take anyone over Obama. I'd also be happy to support someone other than Paul that puts as much emphasis on sound fiscal policy and adherence to our Constitution.

but just like you guys are ABO, I'm for "whomever makes the most sense fiscally and believes the Constitution is more than just a gd piece of paper"

cause I really believe that's the greatest danger to our country, we depend on the Chinese to finance our largesse and the further we move away from the document that created the greatest nation on the face of the earth, the further we move away from greatness.

I just don't get it, pard, I truly don't, why guys that are bright and successful and love this country as much as I do, students of history, have such a hard on for this guy.

I know you give some decent lip service to some of what Paul says about fiscal responsibility but I just don't get why the ridicule of someone that's at least giving lip service to the greatest dangers or nation truly faces


that's more leadership than I've seen out of our nation's capitol in a long time, at least it's the truth.

AMEN!

Five Bills for Day One

The American Competitiveness Act
� Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

The Open Markets Act
� Reinstates the president�s Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate negotiation of new trade agreements

The Domestic Energy Act
� Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration

The Retraining Reform Act
� Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states

The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
� Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent,reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion

Five Executive Orders for Day One

An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
� Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them

An Order to Cut Red Tape
� Directs all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation, and then caps annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars

An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production
� Directs the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid issuance of drilling permits to developers with established safety records seeking to use pre-approved techniques in pre-approved areas

An Order to Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices
� Directs the Department of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and directs the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China does not quickly move to float its currency

An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers
� Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects


Once the raghead is gone.
You might actually get a few dim-o-craps to go along.
From a standpoint of managment skill were lucky Mitt wants the job.
Just about everything hes ever run has worked out pretty well.
Imagine that know how turned to running our goverment.

Its a big ship.
It isnt going to turn on a dime.
Its going to take more than sound bites about liberty and the consitutation to make a difference.


dave

and thus while I've never been a Romney fan due to the reasons many others have stated I do hold out some hope because of his successful track record of righting sinking ships, that Mitt will do the country some real good.


Bob is right that outside of here, the 2nd probably isn't as big a deal to most as it is to us. But it's a very big deal to me.

My skin crawls worse than fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear politicians refer to the 2nd and hunting. And Romney just doesn't get the 2nd at gut level as I and many of my countrymen understand it. It's the difference in me being able to die as a man on my feet versus on my knees as a subject no matter how benevolent the gov't deems its actions.

it's a hell of a distinction to me. YMMV

Paging Mrs. Murkowski.

Randy's post above: I just don't get it, pard, I truly don't, why guys that are bright and successful and love this country as much as I do, students of history, have such a hard on for this guy

I know I ridicule the RPeeer's a bunch and I know I give RP grief but it's for these reasons:

I don't want another CIC apologizing for America. It is not our fault the Twin Towers came down, and we're not responsible for any other act of terrorism.

You already know my stance on military deployment.


RP isn't CIC material, nor is he the spokesman I want for America.

I know you give some decent lip service to some of what Paul says about fiscal responsibility but I just don't get why the ridicule of someone that's at least giving lip service to the greatest dangers or nation truly faces
================

You opine as if RP is the only one who advocates sound fiscal policy. Being able to work with the legislative branches to implement such policy is also a consideration for those of us versed in the sausage making.

Since 2007,we've addressed the many disqualifying factors of RP's policies. The RP supporters have been just as quick to be flip and crass with the policies of other GOP candidates so the RP victim game is going to fall squarely on completely deaf ears.

Paul is a paranoid,delusional old man who preys on a large population of our uneducated and who feeds the validation needs of many of this country's disenfranchised loopy as well as most all racist organizations and their membership.

This thread proved that many RP supporters blindly thought Paul saying he was going to cut a trillion dollars from the budget, his first year in office, was a clear campaign winner rather than seeing it for what it really was...political talk. He can't do it and instead of accepting that revealing fact and giving yourselves pause,diversion strategies became the order of the evening.

While Mike's articulations of his reasons for supporting Paul are to be respected,his explanations and defense of Paul's now 3 year old blathering of blue/pink money,NWO, to simply extort money from those uneducated and unsavory supporters,was largely unpersuasive and rather scary,to be honest.

Paul has some good ideas. BFD,who doesn't? Paul can't implement his. The GOP front-runners can. Trying to turn Paul into some political savior,simply based upon his unworkable sales pitches, without looking past the talk,is a reflection on the Paul supporter and voter,not those of us who point out the inanity of it.
I'd venture a guess my friend Mike's ability to articulate his views on this topic is a talent limited to maybe 5% of Paul's supporters. There are maybe 5 of you here who's articulated thoughts regarding Paul cause me to read their posts twice and think upon them. Mike's ability to eloquently articulate his support of a George Wallace type candidate, who espouses paranoid silliness on top of isolationist pacifism, is not persuasive to those of us just as capable to articulate opposing viewpoints on top of the obvious failings of the salesman.

Supporting anti-American paranoid delusions and loopy conspiracy theories will get one a appropiate adjective-strong reply each and every time. They deserve nothing more than that.

Just like "W" did, right? Or, that Mittsy RINOmney will do, right?

Bwahahahahaha....

As for "Mission Statements" on the wall... "W" had one or two memorable ones.

Oh...oops....

Exactly!

Though, just wait; we'll be lambasted again for "supporting Hussein", because we're not in lock-step to lick the boots of whatever worthless shill the (R)s run this time.

The cheerleaders only want whomever their "team" puts forward to "win", even if that means no difference from the other "team" winning.

We're done in by the parties (two heads; same snake), and by the damned self-blinded cheerleaders on both sidelines.

So, are your union dues supporting, and your union endorsing, Mittsy this time, or are they still all in for Hussein?

You keep talking about...talk. What about Paul's voting record as opposed to Romney's record as Governor? Paul's is conservative. Romney's is liberal. It all begins and ends there. All this talk of who is electable, who is a racist...blah, blah...I don't care. The only proof is in the past. The future holds much mystery. Paul's past is straight, regardless of what you think of him. Romney's past is crooked. If there is one thing I have learned in life, it is that the best predictors of the future come from what has actually happened in the past and not what somebody says they're going to do.

Once again, guesswork trumps fact.

Which is why RP won't be able to do all the stuff he says he wants to--we have this thing called Federalism, with a central government made up of 3 branches--all of whom have to--you know--agree to accomplish anything of substance. If RP accomplishes half of what he proposes, he'll have done more good than the previous 3 Republican presidents.

And the ony thing of substance the Establishment Republicans and Socialist Democrats can apparently agree on is deficit spending and bombing/invading other countries.

So tell me again the difference between the two "mainstream" political parties?.........

We are not going to change things by electing a milktoast, More-Of-The-Same, Status Quoist as president, or for that matter our congressional representives either.

In order to make any difference at this point we will have to take the risk and elect people with a bit of an "edge".......someone who is different than our run-of-the-mill politician.

Casey

You confuse state votes in a largely democratic controlled legislature and voting population with voting at the national level.

No, you confuse historical fact with unlikely possibilities.

What historical fact and unlikely possibilities?

The fact that Romney was for socialized medicine before he was against it, and that RomneyCare was the template for ObamaCare.

The fact that Romney was for the assault weapons ban and restrictions on private ownership of firearms before he was for "hunting" and his definition of what the Second Amendment means.

The fact that Romney promised his voters that he would reduce taxes, then turned around and raised them.

The fact that Romney was for abortion before he was against it.

All of the above are verifiable actions that have been shown time and again in video and print, yet somehow we're to believe that he's had some "come to Jesus" moment when he realized that his prior actions were wrong. I think that moment came when he wanted to run for President and realized that he wouldn't appeal to a large portion of the electorate with those previous actions hanging over his head. He may have fooled some with his supposed change of heart, but he hasn't fooled everyone.

that historically nations begin their decline from overspending



that historically save the .com years of enhanced revenue tax streams no political party we've elected or has been forced down our throats has run this country absent deficit spending


and truthfully even the Clinton/Gingrich contract with America years the surplus was a lie because of keeping unfunded liabilities off the books


those are the cold hard facts Bob


I'm no genius, but I run a small enterprise and I can read a balance sheet and a P&L

it's just more zeros behind the numbers is all and a bunch of "zeros" that have spent us into oblivion


I'm not Cole, but the unlikely possibilities are "to keep voting the same type of guys in and expecting different results"


don't play the obtuse game, it doesn't become you, your intellect is already known and respected in these parts.

don't play the obtuse game, it doesn't become you, your intellect is already known and respected in these parts
===============

I'm losing you. The obtuse game as to what? Please don't play the misread game.

Mike...you describe many candidates throughout history. You act as though one changing their position as they age and mature is something to be ashamed of. Romney is not to blame for the 85% of Mass democrats who infest their legislature and voting booths.

Reagan was seemingly pro abortion and amnesty,as well. Is he one of the presidents you dislike now too,since RP also flipped on him?

Paul has flip-flopped on immigration and has promised a trillion dollar cut his first year he can't possibly accomplish. His hypocrisy on voting earmarks is comically explained away by his peeps without any acceptance of the fact his actions are contrary to his stated positions. A hypocritic vote changes nothing in the dynamic.

Paul will never be able to work with a GOP House and Senate and,as such,he'd be probably the only elected president in history(excuse my attempt at humor)who wouldn't even enjoy a credible bully pulpit. It's almost that simple.

That's alot of aging and maturing in five years.

I prefer to place my trust in someone who has a proven track record of voting for the Constitution at every turn.

Hypocrisy on earmarks? I don't think so. The money was being appropriated even after he voted against it being so. All he was doing was ensuring that his district received their portion of the funds which were already being spent.

Whether he will be able to work with the House and Senate should he be elected is an unknown, and predicting otherwise is foolhardy. If he wins on the Republican ticket, I don't see why a Republican Congress shouldn't work with him, any more than they wouldn't with Romney et al. If he were a third party candidate, then you would have a better argument.

As for Reagan and his early stands on abortion, I'll let the man speak for himself:





June 10, 2004, 10:30 a.m.
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan�s pro-life tract.

EDITOR'S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review's Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators � not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life � the unborn � without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down's Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children."

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion � efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to � any more than the public voice arose against slavery � until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives � the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn � for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law � the same right we have.

What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being � one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life" � in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.

Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion.

The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.

Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being."

A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words, "quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.

Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a "human being."

Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained three years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status."

Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.

I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind � black people in America � could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said
:

This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.

He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."

Another William Brennan � not the Justice � has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic:

The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.

As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life. The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged this issue.

The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.

The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.

We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours?

Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article � the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions � is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don't survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.

Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them, by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them in the context of loving families. You will not find his former patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic.

I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life."

Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across the board.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.

It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.

As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.

The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you don't want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.

I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

Lengthy, but spot on. Romney hasn't come close to this, and won't.

One minute you prefer how a man votes and the next minute you favor a article instead.

Good thing for you Paul's civil right's votes seemed consistent with his newsletters.