|
Tom Hoefling
The debacle in the committee hearing room in Austin, Texas last week exposed the core of the problem with abortion. It all comes down to the humanity, and the God-given, unalienable, equal rights of the individual child, and whether or not the perpetrators who seek to slaughter them will be punished in the same way other murderers are dealt with under the law. In other words, it all came down to the same things it came down to in front of the Supreme Court in 1973. Prior to Roe vs. Wade, Texas had unjust, immoral, unconstitutional laws on the books that deprived the unborn child of their equal rights, and punished their murderers differently, and much more leniently, than the murderers of those fortunate enough to have passed through a birth canal. Which, of course, provided the pretext the wicked Blackmun court needed to dehumanize, to depersonify, the unborn child. Which, of course, then led to the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of more then sixty million innocent, helpless, defenseless children. And what was the response of Pro-Life, Inc., and their faithful minions in the Texas legislature when presented with a just, constitutional bill that would criminalize all abortions in their state? They were steadfast in their determination to make the exact same moral, constitutional, and legal error that led to Roe in the first place, even though more than 98% of the more than three hundred citizens who testified in front of their committee spent more than eight hours, late into the night, explaining to them in great depth, in exquisite detail, why doing this would be a gross violation of the most sacred obligations of their solemn oaths. And the innocent blood continues to flow. Tom Hoefling
The fear of God is the missing ingredient in our politics today - on the part of the people themselves, and on the part of those they elect to public office who are required to take the oath. Our system presupposes a just and perfect judgment on our words and actions in the hereafter, as the mainstay against abuses and usurpations in the civic here and now. Without that healthy dread in our hearts and minds, and in the hearts and minds of our chosen representatives, the whole edifice of constitutional republicanism falls apart. "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?" -- George Washington "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." -- Proverbs 9:10 Tom Hoefling
Almost none of those who will be sworn into office next month in Washington, DC understand what sort of government we are supposed to have under our Constitution. They think we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of in a republic with required constitutional checks on arbitrary, illegitimate power. Why is this so? Because almost none of those who elected them understand what sort of government we are supposed to have under our Constitution, and even among those who actually know, a large percentage of them are willing to sacrifice morality and constitutionality on the altars of abject fear and perceived political expedience. They say that a fish rots from the head down, and in America the sovereign body of the people are the head. Tom Hoefling
Yesterday I was asked by a new friend for my thoughts on Limited Government. My response: I have a simple three part test of all laws and public policies: 1) Is it right? 2) Is it constitutional? 3) Is it absolutely necessary? Much of what our federal government does today fails all three parts of the test. Most of what our federal government does today fails to meet one or more parts of the test. We have to get back within the bounds of morality, constitutionality, and common sense or this great republic cannot possibly survive. Self-government in liberty cannot be preserved and delivered to our children and grandchildren unless we soon return to the basic principles America was founded upon.  Tom Hoefling
The plumb line and level allow the builder to build according to the laws of nature which were enacted by nature's God. Would you hire a builder who scoffed at the use of the plumb line and level? Would you hire a builder who didn't even own a plumb line or a level? Of course not. So, why in the world would you support a politician who pays absolutely no mind to God's laws, or the laws of nature, or the obligations of his sacred oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? It's a fair question. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
-- Article III, Section One, U.S. Constitution Most people think federal judges receive a lifetime appointment to the bench. But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says that they hold their offices "during good Behaviour." How many of you seriously think that the "Behaviour" of our judges has been "good"? It's time to elect leaders to Congress who will act correctly, according to the obligations of their oaths, and begin to make the practice of the impeachment and removal of judges who behave badly THE RULE, rather than the exception. If we don't rein in the courts, and if we continue to elect politicians who think we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of a free constitutional republic with checks and balances, we can't possibly save the country. -- Tom Hoefling Tom Hoefling The #1 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 1. Americans continue to turn away from God and His Word. The #2 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 2. Americans continue to turn away from our historic understanding of the laws of nature and nature's God, which are the foundation of our claim to liberty, as was spelled out so eloquently in our national charter, the Declaration of Independence. The #3 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 3. Americans continue to ignore all of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, every clause of which is violated by the practice of human abortion. The #4 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 4. Americans continue to ignore the explicit, imperative equal protection and due process requirements of the supreme law of our land, the Constitution, as laid out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as in the constitutions of all of our States. The #5 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 5. Americans continue to be deceived by the judicial supremacist lie, the belief that judges are somehow constitutionally-authorized to make laws, or veto laws, when nothing could be further from the truth. The #6 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 6. Christians and others who call themselves "pro-life" continue to support an immoral, unconstitutional "strategy" that surrenders the principles of God-given, unalienable rights and equal protection under the law, thereby guaranteeing the continuation of abortion on demand. The #7 reason abortion on demand continues in 2016 America: 7. Christians continue to support for public office candidates who have no moral commitment to the keeping of their sacred oath to provide equal protection to every innocent person, including the innocent unborn child. Reason #7 is the summing up of why abortion on demand continues in 2016 America.  "Moral, constitutional, republican self-government in liberty cannot possibly co-exist with socialism, with Islam, with the homosexual agenda, or with the practice of human abortion. One absolutely precludes the other, sooner or later.. Pick a side, because it is an existential fight to the finish, whether you like it or not."
-- Tom Hoefling "When it comes to judicially-imposed radicalism, the Founders did not leave us without recourse."6/27/2014 As part of an ongoing discussion we have been having with certain influential national conservative Christian leaders concerning the dangerous, destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, my wife Siena penned the response below. It is so good, and so important, that I asked her permission to republish it to a wider audience. I hope and pray that every reader will give serious thought to what she is saying. -- Tom H.
xxxxx, As we take the time to sort out the implications of the ongoing state-by-state attack on marriage, with the courts the primary culprits, I believe that most of us are still in the learning phase when it comes to the powers of the executive and legislative branches to check the judiciary. Given the importance of the matter, anything and everything should be constitutionally explored to preserve our good inheritance for future generations. Our federalist system was designed to preserve that inheritance as long as possible. When a state takes a blow in a manner destructive of its constitutional institutions, the federal government is most especially obliged to act. We cannot lose sight of Article IV in the U.S. Constitution. Section 4 requires that the states (and the people) retain the ability to make laws to govern themselves. We read: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government[.]" This means, for instance, that an oligarchy of any sort is prohibited in the states. None but a state-by-state republic is permitted or guaranteed. And we know the word "guarantee" is a legal term, that carries with it the expectation of power and obligation to enforce the promise made. The federal government is the body charged in Article IV with direct obligatory oversight, as an extra layer of protection to liberty, in order to secure the ability of the people in each state to make laws in their republic. No branch of government anywhere, whether at the state or federal level, has the constitutional authority to impose oligarchical rule upon the body of the people. Nor does the Constitution tie our hands, or the hands of the chief executive and legislature, when the states are under attack. In its full context, Article IV, Section 4, explicitly names the executive and legislative branches as the chief instruments charged to provide ultimate protection to the states, to fulfill the purpose of federalism in the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." When it comes to judicially-imposed radicalism, the Founders did not leave us without recourse. The federal government, in particular the executive and legislative branches, is bound by contract to make good on the republican guarantee of Article IV. We are designed to be a nation of law, not of caprice. And "we the people" fought a revolution against tyrannical caprice just for the opportunity to make law in harmony with the laws of nature. If we look more closely at the legal instrument our Founders created, we see that they did not leave us unprotected. All we have lacked in modern times is the election of individuals who are wise and courageous enough to uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. For liberty, Siena Hoefling P.S. On the question of federal involvement in marriage, you may take a look at the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, in which Congress required the prohibition of polygamy for statehood. The Act fulfilled the obligation of Article IV, Section 2, to put the new state of Utah on equal footing with the original states. Article IV, Section 2, requires: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Civil recognition of marriage between a man and wife is one of the primary privileges of a civil society. Inescapably, the federal government has the authority and duty to safeguard the exercise of that privilege for every state, in order to constitutionally "insure domestic tranquility." For domestic tranquility's sake, the federal government maintains the power to oversee a singly exclusive form of marriage in all of the states, to thereby defend for posterity the natural obligations owed by parentage. P.P.S. No matter its use, the word "domestic," Latin for "house," is inseparable from the idyllic concept of family life: father, mother, child. Even in the national sense, the word "domestic" alludes to family. As Webster's 1828 dictionary puts it, "Domestic . . . 4. Pertain[s] to a nation considered as a family." So it is that domestic violence hits us closest to home. I cannot help but think of Article IV, Section 4, in the context of abortion: a domestic violence in the closet possible place--the womb. "Rights of persons. Section 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Tom Hoefling May 24, 2014 Today Iowa Right to Life didn't endorse me for Governor in the June 3rd Republican primary. Which is no surprise, since I didn't fill out their candidate questionnaire. Why not? Because their language told me right up front that I couldn't possibly earn their endorsement, even though I've spent the last two decades as an uncompromising right-to-lifer, in political battles all across the land. In order to answer their questions "correctly," I would have had to agree to support legislation that I know to be immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, and futile. Lawless "laws" that, in effect, end in "and then you can kill the baby," which grant express permission to commit most abortions, despite the fact that God forbids murder, without exception, and even though our Constitution explicitly and imperatively REQUIRES equal protection for the right to life of EVERY PERSON, in every jurisdiction in America. IT’S NOT OPTIONAL. There are only two scriptural, moral, constitutional, legal, and political arguments against the practice of human abortion: 1) The God-given, unalienable, nature of the individual right to live, and 2) the absolute obligation borne by all officers of government, in every branch, at every level, to provide equal protection under the law. Those two all-important principles also happen to be the basis for the rule of law in America, and for our form of republican, constitutional self-government. Destroy those principles, as permitting abortion, any abortion, does, and you have obliterated the foundations of our American claim to liberty. The bills that continue to be forwarded by IRTL, and their parent organization, National Right to Life, which they were asking me to agree to, surrender those arguments right up front. Of course, they had no problem endorsing my opponent, Governor Terry Branstad. Again, I’m not at all surprised. But here’s the problem with continuing to cede a “pro-life” label to politicians like Mr. Branstad: In order to write a truly pro-life bill, one that actually fulfills the explicit, absolute requirements of the Iowa and the U.S. Constitutions, that all persons be protected equally in their God-given, unalienable right to live, you have to erase Terry Branstad's, and Iowa Right to Life’s, entire "pro-life" legacy from the Iowa Code. I know. I helped craft Tom Shaw's House File 138, which meets the moral and constitutional test of a true pro-life bill. In addition to rightly identifying the unborn child as a person, its language scrubbed all the unconstitutional Branstad/IRTL code sections that permit abortion. Of course, the Branstad Republican establishment consistently insisted on burying HF-138 in sub-committee, while pushing even more unconstitutional "pro-life" legislation, so that they could then go out again and pretend to their naive pro-life constituency that they are doing something to stop this American holocaust. Wake up, people. Read your own constitutions, and start demanding that those who represent you fulfill the primary purpose and duty of their offices, which is the defense of the supreme right of every single individual human being, the right to live. "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." "We're winning!" - Tom Hoefling
WND Bob Unruh “Our Creator, not government, gives to all people ‘unalienable’ natural rights,” the opinion asserts, arguing that state laws protecting children after birth also cover the unborn. The concurrent opinion by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who once fought the state over the display of the Ten Commandments, says: “As stated by James Wilson, one of the first justices on the United States Supreme Court: ‘Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.’” Moore noted the “first right listed in the Declaration as among our unalienable rights is the right to ‘Life.’” “Blackstone wrote that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb,’” he wrote. The case at hand dealt with a woman, Sarah Janie Hicks, who was charged after her newborn tested positive for drugs. She had pleaded guilty to a count of violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute. Her conviction was affirmed. “We … hold that the use of the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn, and furthers Alabama’s policy of protecting life from the earliest stages of development,” the majority opinion said. The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which represents pro-life organizations, submitted a brief in the case. “In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. Staver said the opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker “are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions.” “One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards,” he said. ‘Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.” The 8-1 decision affirmed the position adopted by the court a year ago. In that case, Ankrom v. State, the court ruled the term “child” includes the “unborn child.” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/protection-for-children-includes-unborn/#MUqKKDDz5dg0DGIj.99 Tom Hoefling:
On Friday night in Cedar Rapids the designated stand-in for my opponent, former State Representative Jeff Kaufmann, boasted about how every "pro-life" law on the books in our state was signed by Terry Branstad. Here's the gigantic problem with that brag: In order to write a truly pro-life bill, one that actually fulfills the explicit, absolute requirements of the Iowa and the U.S. Constitutions, that all persons be protected equally in their God-given, unalienable right to live, you have to erase Terry Branstad's entire "pro-life" legacy from the Iowa Code. I know. I helped craft Tom Shaw's House File 138, which meets the moral and constitutional test of a true pro-life bill. In addition to rightly identifying the unborn child as a person, its language scrubbed all the unconstitutional Branstad code sections that in effect end with "and then you can kill the baby." Of course, the Branstad Republican establishment has consistently insisted on burying HF-138 in committee, and pushing even more unconstitutional "pro-life" legislation, so that they can then go out once again and pretend to their pro-life constituency that they are doing something to stop this American holocaust. Wake up, people. Quit buying the lie. Read your own constitutions, and start demanding that those who represent you fulfill the primary purpose and duty of their offices, which is the defense of the supreme right of every single individual human being. "Rights of persons. Section 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." -- Iowa Constitution - ARTICLE I. - Bill of Rights "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "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, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." -- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973 "You shall not murder." -- Exodus 20:13 "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson Tom Hoefling December 31, 2013 "A well regulated Militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free State, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed." Recently, we got the news that Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has set up a new political action committee in our state, in preparation for the 2014 and 2016 elections, for the purpose of advancing his anti-Right to Keep and Bear Arms agenda. I know I speak for many Iowans when I say to him, simply, “Go back to New York.” In Iowa, we generally go out and shoot WITH our neighbors, not AT them. That’s because we understand the value of innocent human life, and that guns are nothing more than the physical tools, the implements, we need for defending ourselves, our families, our property, and, ultimately, our liberties and rights. Gun violence, and violence overall, is nothing more than a symptom of the moral breakdown of a people and a society. It has little to do with which physical objects are available to commit those criminal acts. Take away the guns and an immoral, violent people will bash each others’ brains in with a rock. No matter how much Mr. Bloomberg brags in the press about how safe it is in New York City, as compared to other big cities in America, our murder rate in Iowa is miniscule compared to his hometown, or Chicago, or Detroit, or Washington, DC, the places with the most draconian, unconstitutional, restrictions on the people’s gun rights. Most of our Iowa counties go decades without a single incidence of firearms-related murder, despite the fact that we are quite well-armed here, thank you very much. On a merely pragmatic level, why in the world would we listen to him? More importantly and to the point, our Iowa Constitution asserts quite explicitly, right out of the gate, in Section One of our Bill of Rights, that: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain INALIENABLE rights--among which are those of enjoying and DEFENDING life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and DEFENDING property, and pursuing and obtaining SAFETY and happiness.” Our most sacred and important rights are not open to negotiation or compromise, because the word INALIENABLE means something: inalienable Our state motto remains: “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” There are still large numbers of us who mean that. Any Iowa political figure that is foolish enough to find common cause with Bloomberg will almost certainly suffer a crushing political defeat, no matter how much money he expends on their behalf. And every prospective 2016 presidential candidate who comes courting in the months and years ahead will find that their political fortunes are completely dependent on whether they side with him in this matter, or with We the People of Iowa and our natural, God-given, inalienable rights. I’ll close with the wise words of one of the most distinguished New Yorkers in history, who understood exactly what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in fact, all about: “Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped. ... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.” Tom Hoefling is a Republican candidate for Iowa governor in 2014. You can check him out at http://www.tomhoefling.com.
If you agree with Tom Hoefling, and are committed to the preservation of our most important liberties and rights, please join the Iowa Leadership and Accountability Project today! We need you! http://www.tomhoefling.com/join-ilap.html "Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence."
-- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 "Other nations have received their laws from conquerors; some are indebted for a constitution to the suffering of their ancestors through revolving centuries. The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. . . .
"Our Union is now complete; our Constitution composed, established, and approved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties: We may justly address you as the decemviri did the Romans, and say: 'Nothing that we propose can pass into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, O Americans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends.'” -- Samuel Adams, On American Independence, 1776 "A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, 1794 "Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements, and objects have irresistible influence in mere questions of policy. And the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes or the policy of another. The constitution is not subject to such fluctuations. It is to have a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, so far at least as human infirmity will allow, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever."
-- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 Tom Hoefling:
"Self-evident" means "completely obvious to absolutely everyone," or, to use the modern vernacular, "as-plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face." It's self-evident that all men are CREATED equal, endowed by their Creator with the intrinsic individual right to live. If someone tells you that a baby isn't a person, they're being dishonest, to God and to themselves first and foremost. They know quite well that the child in the womb is a human being, made in the image and likeness of the One Who made us. I don't argue the point with them any more. I simply do what America's founders did: Clearly assert the equal rights of each and every one of these precious little people, and the absolute imperative sworn duty of every officer of government to protect them. I pray every day that I, and millions of others, will be given the boldness and courage to show the people the absolute injustice of the barbaric, heinous practice of human abortion, and to stop it forever in this country. "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- The U.S. Constitution “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, fourth U.S. President “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” -- Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. President “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” -- Congressman Davy Crockett “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” -- President Franklin Pierce Tom Hoefling
The "pro-life" "Republicans" in the U.S. House, at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, are slated to take up a bill today that would codify permission for certain professional killers to murder paraplegics, or to kill any person for that matter, if they are first given enough morphine to make sure that they don't feel any pain. Okay, not really. But they are offering legislation that is just as capricious, illogical, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and immoral. They are forwarding the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" (H.R. 1797). This legislation recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb, and then specifically allows abortionists to kill them, if the child has not yet reached a certain stage of human development. But the constitutional criteria is not whether or not someone can feel pain. It is whether or not they are a PERSON. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." - the Fifth Amendment "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the Fourteenth Amendment I will never support any politician who supports the codification of this sort of lawless law. I have so pledged, as has everyone I most closely associate myself with politically. Every argument in favor of this bill is Utilitarian, not moral or constitutional, by the way. And I am not a godless Utilitarian. I am a Christian. And Utilitarian fixes don't work anyhow. Not only are they wrong, in the long haul they always prove to be an abject defeat, not a victory. Because to buy into them, you have to first surrender all of the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against the heinous practice of killing babies. "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce, 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill "A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal."
-- John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 EqualProtectionforPosterity.com
By Tom Hoefling, November 15, 2012 The practice of human abortion violates every single clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and its explicit, imperative requirements. It is the worst sort of lawless rebellion against the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The idea that it is the law of the land is the biggest, most destructive lie ever told in America. The Supreme Law of the Land states as its first purpose the formation of a more perfect Union. The practice of human abortion destroys the most fundamental familial bonds that unite humanity, the natural ties between a mother and her child, destroys the unity of families and communities, and is well on its way to destroying the Union we call America. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land states as its purpose the establishment of Justice. There can be no greater physical injustice committed towards any innocent person than to murder them. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land states as its purpose the insuring of domestic Tranquility. The practice of human abortion is the cruelest violence that could possibly be committed against women, children, and their families. It has, in fact, filled our land with violence, burdening the national conscience with guilt for the shed blood of countless tens of millions of innocent little boys and girls. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land states as its purpose the provision of the common Defense. That is, by definition, the defense of ALL persons in America. The practice of human abortion is the destruction of the child AND the destruction of Equality. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land states as its purpose the promotion of the general Welfare. That is, by definition, the welfare, or well-being, of ALL persons in America. Again, the practice of human abortion is the destruction of the child AND the destruction of Equality. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land states as its purpose the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The practice of human abortion has already obliterated nearly an entire generation, depriving each individual victim of any possible chance to enjoy any of the Blessings of Liberty, and, by erasing entire bloodlines, it is obliterating Posterity itself. Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land, in the Fifth Amendment, explicitly and imperatively forbids the killing of any innocent person, the willful destruction of any person who has not been charged, tried, and convicted of a capital offense. Abortion is the grossest violation of Due Process imaginable. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Abortion is NOT "the law of the land." The Supreme Law of the Land, in the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly and imperatively requires every State in the Union to equally protect the right to life of every innocent person, and requires that each and every person be provided with the Equal Protection of the laws by each State. The practice of human abortion is the grossest violation of Equal Protection imaginable. "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Even if abortion was "the law of the land," which it is not, any such lawless law or constitution would be NULL AND VOID anyway, grossly violating as it must the first Law of Nature, which is the absolute right and DUTY of the people, and of ALL governments, to protect innocent life, individual liberty, and private property. "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, the Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, November 20, 1772 "An unjust law is no law at all." – St. Augustine of Hippo "Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the Deity, from the relations, we stand in, to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." -- William Blackstone "When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." -- Alexander Hamilton Not only is the practice of human abortion NOT “the law of the land,” it COULD NOT BE the law of a land premised as this one is in a clear understanding and acknowledgment of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence Every elected executive, every legislator, every judge, that allows the practice of human abortion to continue anywhere in America is in gross violation of their sacred oath of office. They have, as our constitutional republic’s founders charged against King George III in our nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence, “abdicated government here by declaring us out of [their] protection and waging war against us.” They must, by any and all lawful means, be removed and replaced by those who understand the foundations for law in America and the most fundamental and important obligations of their oaths. That, by the mercy and grace of God, is the only hope we have to prevent the further destruction of America. Sign the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution here: http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/the-equal-protection-for-posterity-resolution.html |
Dial in to talk to
|
RSS Feed
