The government’s selective defence of freedom

[mindyrbusiness]

pupetboy.gif (65.23 KiB) Viewed 480 times

unborn-child-womb-2.png (28.92 KiB) Viewed 480 times

Harper and all the politicians have other worries than caring about the voices that can't speak.

[Ben Kenobi]

April has been a bad month for us, hasn't it?

Santorum withdrew, the AB election showed the Rose to be backstabbers, and now Harper backstabbing social conservatives.

Good riddance April. Let's hope that May brings better news.

[free_life2]

We need a Ron Paul in Canada. Screw Harper and the red pony he rode into town on.

[Maikeru]

I speak for myself and no one asked me if there was a consensus so don't even go there.

Ditto...

[Faramir]

Wouldn't Ron Paul side against so cons as a libertarian that believes moral issues should not be legislated?

When you think about it though this is NOT just about social issues. Harper threw so cons under the bus just now, but he has thrown fiscons there as well previously. In fact I recall a Harper who was very critical of the Liberal party love affair for China, yet Harper is now kissing Chinese ass. I imagine that the banking industry such as the likes of Drummond, that were big Liberal Party players will now switch to the Con party.

[T.G.]

Liberal, Conservative ... same difference. Just a lot of political theatre, jumping up and down and finger pointing, but the end result is the same.

[Hodgson]

Harper said he wouldn't reopen the debate.

The country is clearly not ready.

Better off with Harper keeping things neutral than a leftist pushing more.

[Connie Fournier]

Harper said he wouldn't reopen the debate.

The country is clearly not ready.

Better off with Harper keeping things neutral than a leftist pushing more.

It's not just a matter of not "reopening the debate". Harper allowed Woodworth to go all the way to the House of Commons with this Motion so that he could use the Party Whip to make an example of him so that other socon MPs won't get any uppity ideas. His actions clearly show his contempt for social conservatives, and the absolute cold, thuggish behaviour he is capable of if someone dares to hold a contrary opinion.

[Faramir]

Harper said he wouldn't reopen the debate.

The country is clearly not ready.

Better off with Harper keeping things neutral than a leftist pushing more.

It's not just a matter of not "reopening the debate". Harper allowed Woodworth to go all the way to the House of Commons with this Motion so that he could use the Party Whip to make an example of him so that other socon MPs won't get any uppity ideas. His actions clearly show his contempt for social conservatives, and the absolute cold, thuggish behaviour he is capable of if someone dares to hold a contrary opinion.

BREAKING NEWS - a handful of social conservative MPs have decided to sit as Independents in protest over the treatment of the abortion issue. So much for those old Reform MPs, eh? I guess they know which side their pension, er bread, is buttered on.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I don't think any person or group of people has any particular right to define what debates are open or closed.

Any debate is open. The question is, can it carry the day? For example, capital punishment is open, probably would lose a free vote in the house, but perhaps not. Same sex marriage, ditto, although it has been subjected to one post-legislative review. Seat belt legislation, very little chance of an overturning, but there's an example where most might agree that the debate is closed, however, not absolutely. Bans on smoking? It would not surprise me to see a push-back on this eventually. Membership in the UN? Should be opened to debate. Aliens control HAARP and the government? Probably not, but who is authorized to prevent debate on this or any other issue?

Doing business with China? That's the real issue that our elites don't want anyone to touch, because it's their fat incomes at stake. I would personally like to see that reopened. China is no better than Nazi Germany was in 1938. But the cash flow is stupendous (for some) and so we will hear "let Harper decide" because he is the governor that China has appointed to run this colony. Or have you not noticed yet? Gung hey fat wallet.

[free_life2]

Wouldn't Ron Paul side against so cons as a libertarian that believes moral issues should not be legislated?

When you think about it though this is NOT just about social issues. Harper threw so cons under the bus just now, but he has thrown fiscons there as well previously. In fact I recall a Harper who was very critical of the Liberal party love affair for China, yet Harper is now kissing Chinese ass. I imagine that the banking industry such as the likes of Drummond, that were big Liberal Party players will now switch to the Con party.

SoCon's would welcome Ron Paul on his abortion platform, that would actually stop abortions as compared to GOP "we are pro-life, vote for us...see ya sucker" politicking that has done NOTHING to stop abortion.

Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that social conservatism is "a losing position" for the Republican Party.

"Do you--are you uncomfortable--certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race," Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"

"No," said Paul. "I think it's a losing position.

"I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems."

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the "Personhood Pledge" published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: "I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting 'the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,' and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I 'support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children."

The 14th Amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It also says: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an "addendum" in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

"Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents," said Paul.

"While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life," Paul continued. "I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law."

In the same statement, Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws.

"To summarize my views--I believe the federal government has a role to play," said Paul. "I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."

"I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues," Paul said. "The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a 'Federal Department of Abortion.' Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

"As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts," said Paul. "This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state."

In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

"I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans," said Paul.

On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about "who is going to pay for birth control pills"--an apparent reference to Santorum's statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.

"Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?" Crowley asked Paul.

"Well, I don't see how that's possible," said Paul. "And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people's social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-pau ... g-position

[Faramir]

Wouldn't Ron Paul side against so cons as a libertarian that believes moral issues should not be legislated?

When you think about it though this is NOT just about social issues. Harper threw so cons under the bus just now, but he has thrown fiscons there as well previously. In fact I recall a Harper who was very critical of the Liberal party love affair for China, yet Harper is now kissing Chinese ass. I imagine that the banking industry such as the likes of Drummond, that were big Liberal Party players will now switch to the Con party.

SoCon's would welcome Ron Paul on his abortion platform, that would actually stop abortions as compared to GOP "we are pro-life, vote for us...see ya sucker" politicking that has done NOTHING to stop abortion.

Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that social conservatism is "a losing position" for the Republican Party.

"Do you--are you uncomfortable--certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race," Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"

"No," said Paul. "I think it's a losing position.

"I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems."

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the "Personhood Pledge" published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: "I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting 'the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,' and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I 'support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children."

The 14th Amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It also says: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an "addendum" in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

"Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents," said Paul.

"While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life," Paul continued. "I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law."

In the same statement, Paul went on to say: "A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does--through state laws.

"To summarize my views--I believe the federal government has a role to play," said Paul. "I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."

"I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues," Paul said. "The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a 'Federal Department of Abortion.' Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

"As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts," said Paul. "This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state."

In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

"I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans," said Paul.

On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about "who is going to pay for birth control pills"--an apparent reference to Santorum's statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.

"Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?" Crowley asked Paul.

"Well, I don't see how that's possible," said Paul. "And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people's social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-pau ... g-position

Great find. He minces no words that CONCEPTION is the start. Of course the liberals I have told that a fetus, even at 8 weeks, is a human being, laugh at me and have called me a "bozo" - in the context of those social conservatives that spoke out in Danielle Smith's WRA. I have to wonder if any liberal who says that has ever been to his wife's ultrasound? If you can look at that life and still insist it is not a human being, you have to have a heart of metal and a brain of straw.

Now of course if Paul argues that other social issues, such as gay marriage, prostitution, or drug laws out to be something conservatives should disavow, I would agree there too. There is definately social issues that should be discussed from a legislative point of view and those that should not. Not all are equal.

Of course one of those that might divide conservatives from libertarians is immigration - illegal and otherwise.

[virgey]

Harper said he wouldn't reopen the debate.

The country is clearly not ready.

Better off with Harper keeping things neutral than a leftist pushing more.

It's not just a matter of not "reopening the debate". Harper allowed Woodworth to go all the way to the House of Commons with this Motion so that he could use the Party Whip to make an example of him so that other socon MPs won't get any uppity ideas. His actions clearly show his contempt for social conservatives, and the absolute cold, thuggish behaviour he is capable of if someone dares to hold a contrary opinion.

I was going to add my two cents, but you have made it unnecessary as my words would have only been a repeat your previous posts on this issue.

[Maikeru]

Harper said he wouldn't reopen the debate.
The country is clearly not ready.

It's not just a matter of not "reopening the debate". Harper allowed Woodworth to go all the way to the House of Commons with this Motion so that he could use the Party Whip to make an example of him...

PM Harper acquired his office the hard way...he earned it.

What Canada lacks is not good leadership, but a worthwhile Loyal Opposition.
Canada's LO is mute to abortion, expending all it's energy on besmirching the sitting government - yet no smoking in cars, if kiddies are passenger, is worthy of legislative consideration.

Where's the Parliamentarian voice to come from that includes the voices of the unborn today, when so many seem concerned for tiny voices a century hence ?

His actions clearly show his contempt for social conservatives, and the absolute cold, thuggish behaviour he is capable of if someone dares to hold a contrary opinion.

Long time members of FreeDominion are well used to cold, thuggish behaviour in the cyberworld of words which at times has overflowed into meat world courts.

Mr. Harper has handed the Loyal Opposition an excellent opportunity to demand further discussion on the matter...

[Angleland]

Every moderator and member of Free Dominion agrees that Harper behaves like a thug

Whether I agree or not is immaterial but don't ever speak for me. That's exactly what what you hate about Harper

I’m not behaving like a thug, I was simply pointing out that Harper was wrong, and the Free Dominion community feels Harper is wrong, you seem a little sensitive about this relax a little…

Not likely. I speak for myself and no one asked me if there was a consensus so don't even go there.

Agree