Tag Archives: Abortion

News from and Opinions on the Saturday Afternoon Evan Alaska Conference Call

News from and Opinions on the Saturday Afternoon Evan Alaska Conference Call.

I was unable to attend the Saturday afternoon teleconference as something personal came up. I did listen to some of the recording, but for some reason I was not able to rewind it (possibly an issue with my phone) as I had previously done, so transcription was not feasible. What I can say is that there are no major updates and we only have two days left to lobby Ron Paul. If I come across a link of the recording, I will post it. Until then, you can listen to it by dialing 559-726-1299 and then then 811476#, which is the access code. If you are serious about this effort, please send an email to Ron Paul through his house.gov contact form, telling him you want him to at least consider contacting the Libertarian Party about being Gary Johnson’s running mate. And contrary to what you may have heard, it is NOT too late, and ballot access would not be lost in very many states, or any at all if any law suits are won. Nor is a write-in candidacy viable unless Richard Gilbert wins his latest case, which to my knowledge has not even been filed yet. If it is filed Monday, he has five to six weeks to win it and organize a write-in campaign. That’s all fine and good, but on the other hand, the possibility of drafting Ron Paul to the Libertarian ticket has even less time to succeed, which is why if you want Ron Paul to run on at least some ticket, it should be the primary focus, at least until Monday the 17th, by which time it will likely no longer be possible for the LP to do the legwork in enough states, both on the party and on the election level, to change their ballot, as the first ballots ship out September 22nd. If this effort fails, it will not be because it was not viable, as some have erroneously (I can prove that, by the way) been saying since it was first brought up, but because they mistakenly thought other efforts (such as the Richard Gilbert case) were more viable. Or because they stubbornly refused to see Ron on the bottom of the ticket, even if they thought it was viable. Or because they timorously preferred being shrinking violets over actually getting 15% for Gary, which is the only way he can win, and without which there is no real reason to support a Gary Johnson ticket over a Ron Paul write-in, unless perhaps you prefer him to Ron Paul on the issues, which is a perfectly fine reason, but does not reflect even half of his current support, let alone a tenth of the support he needs to win. The only reason for people who prefer Ron Paul to vote for Gary Johnson if this does not happen will be because it counts more, not because he has a chance of winning. Some will think that’s a good enough reason, others, perhaps more, will not. So you see, not only was it viable to get Ron Paul on the ticket, it may have been necessary. But rest assured, if this does not go through, and I expect it won’t, there is still the possibility of a cabinet position or an endorsement. That will likely be the focus of this blog starting in the next few days. It is curious and unfortunate that as the likelihood increases on the scale of our options, the enthusiasm decreases exponentially. I won’t go so far as to say that this is a detrimental characteristic of the Liberty movement, as its opposite would surely play into the status quo’s hands, and make us the worst compromisers.

To All the Factions Here on Daily Paul

To All the Factions Here on Daily Paul.

This is also posted here.

To those planning on voting for Johnson:

Gary Johnson can not get elected unless he gets into the debates. He can not get into the debates unless he gets 15% in three nation-wide polls. He can not reach 15% for a long enough period of time to span three separate polls unless he includes Ron Paul on his team or Ron Paul powerfully endorses him. I do not think either of these things will happen unless we continue to lobby Doctor Paul, Governor Johnson, Judge Gray, the Libertarian Party, and our friends who support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, even if it means convincing them to change their minds. It is true that the Libertarian Presidential ticket could lose ballot access in a few states for just changing its Vice Presidential nominee. But the amount of support adding Ron Paul to the ticket could bring could offset this, especially if Gary Johnson made it into the debates. Additionally, lost ballot access need not follow, as a legal battle could end in the tickets favor. The Libertarian Party can not hold another convention, and thus may not be able to amend their by laws or pick another running mate, but there is one loophole in its bylaws that could allow them to change their Vice Presidential Pick. It would ultimately be up to the chair whether utilization of this loophole would stand.

To those planning on writing in Paul:

A Paul write-in will only have an impact if Richard Gilbert of Lawyers for Ron Paul wins his case to have states comply with his understanding of the Voting Rights Act, which is that anti-write-in laws are in violation. If he succeeds in doing this, I will be the first to congratulate his efforts and promote a write-in candidacy.

To those who would vote for a hypothetical JohnsonPaul if it were switched to a real PaulJohnson:

Many states have sore-loser laws meaning that Ron Paul can not run at the top of a ticket because he was in the Republican Primary and lost (albeit through the cheating of the Romney team and other assorted establishment cabals). I personally would favor a Ron Paul Gary Johnson ticket over a Gary Johnson Ron Paul ticket, with good reason. But this would cause several law suits. The ones won would be costly, perhaps counter-productive, and the ones lost would result in loss of ballot access.

To everyone:

There is only until about Monday the 17th to lobby Ron Paul to contact the Libertarian Party about his intentions to join their ticket. This idea has been well-received by high-ranking Libertarian Party officials on the state, national, and campaign levels. They are somewhat indecisive to be sure, and though they will try to make this work if Ron Paul contacts them, they make no promises, and the likelihood of a GJ/RP ticket happening decreases with each passing day.

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement.

The Early Hours of September 3rd, 2012.

This site is dedicated to a Paul-Johnson or Johnson-Paul ticket for the 2012 presidential race. There is no intent to disenfranchise voters or campaign contributors, pressure candidates or staffers, or anger the grassroots or the electorate. There is only the desire to create a winning ticket by asking Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and/or the Libertarian Party to make accommodations to the Ron Paul camp. This does not mean anyone should blackmail or belittle or berate the Gary Johnson team, but simply that we should ask them to weigh the requests and arguments and decide, voluntarily for themselves to potentially forgo one or both of their chances of becoming the president or vice president, for the sake of the cause. For those Libertarian Party members out there who find this idea reprehensible, I respect their rights, but I question their reasoning. I am certainly not for winning at all costs under any circumstances, but I am for asking all the candidates and officials in question to consider the merits of proposals such as what will be posted and promoted on this blog. Namely that the Libertarian Party make room for Ron Paul.

First, and hardest of all to accomplish would be having both Gary Johnson and Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can be placed at the top of the ticket and Gary Johnson at the bottom. Secondly, perhaps easier but still likely to elicit an initial backlash if not permanently damaged relationships between lovers of Liberty would be to have Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can take his place at the bottom of the ticket. And thirdly, would be to have Gary Johnson and/or Jim Gray and/or the Libertarian Party promise to appoint Ron Paul to a cabinet level position. There may be the chance that they plan on doing this anyway, but were they to make the promise, and to contact Ron Paul directly about it, before the November election, preferably soon, it could boost their polling numbers, their campaign contributions, and their voter turnout by a considerable margin. Enough to get media attention. Enough to make it into the debates. Enough to compete. Enough to win.

There will always be those die hard Ron Paul supporters, some of whom like Gary Johnson, and some of whom just don’t trust him, that do not plan on voting for Gary Johnson for a variety of reasons. This is their right. All men should be free to vote their conscience. Ridiculing them for this serves no purpose but to alienate you from them and them from you. How does this promote the cause of Liberty? But the numbers of such stubborn people would decrease considerably were they to be given some reassurances. These might include acquiescence to one of the aforementioned proposals, an endorsement of Gary Johnson by Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson convincing people of how much he and Ron Paul have in common, in spite of Gary Johnson’s perceived, though relative, ignorance or halfheartedness on so many issues ranging from the Natural Law to Economics to the Constitution to Foreign Policy to the War on Drugs.

If all of this could only come about at greater cost to the Liberty movement than benefit, the very idea should be cast aside lest a schism rends all that we have fought for asunder. Such rifts only occur for ideological reasons, and even then rarely. They should not be found to arise between former comrades who merely disagree on a few items of strategy.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, great or small, positive or negative. Please note that none of these things are originally my idea. I simply felt compelled by recent events (namely the Evan Alaska Conference Calls, one the night of September 2nd, and another on the night of September 6th, as well as rumors on the DailyPaul that gained traction after the Convention and particularly with the news of Ron Paul’s September 4th appearance on Jay Leno) and the hard work of others to become a part of this. For the record, I am a Ron Paul supporter who likes Gary Johnson but remains wary of him. I don’t even know that I could vote for him without some of the above requests being granted.

SIx Page Version of How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot

SIx Page Version of How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot.

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Slot 6 Pages

Click on Link for Ideas and Info!

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot – Click on Link for Hyperlinked Version

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot – Click on Link for Hyperlinked Version.

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot – Click on Link for Hyperlinked Version.

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Slot 4 Pages

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL IS SLATED FOR EARLY SATURDAY AFTERNOON – BE THERE!

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL IS SLATED FOR EARLY SATURDAY AFTERNOON – BE THERE!.

This information is from the Drafting Ron Paul to Stay in the Race event page, https://www.facebook.com/events/343258709094797/

The next call is Satruday at:

12:00 PM ALASKA TIME That is:
1:00 PM Pacific – 2:00 PM Mountain – 3:00 PM Central – 4:00 PM Eastern

If you are willing to support this effort, please share this event and call in:

Conference dial-in number: (559) 726-1200

Participant access code: 811476

We now have a simulcast-Live-stream of today’s conference call set up, thanks to Leandrah Grace. If you can’t afford to call in, just go to http://tobtr.com/s/3742575. to tune in!

HT LIVE Teleconference Simulcast – Electing for Ron Paul
www.blogtalkradio.com
Simulcast Teleconference Electing/Drafting Ron Paul Conference dial-in number (559)726-1200 Participant access code: 811476 The new Facebook Group for everyone in this effort will be open to ALL who wish to join, though negative people will be promptly banned. www.WeNeedPaul.com Facebook Page is “W…

Please understand that any of District Chairs and Bonus votes and other Party officials can be REMOVED from their State Central Committees or other offices for joining this group or otherwise promoting a candidate for office in a party not their own.

As the founder of this group, I’m most likely going to have to resign from my own position on the State Central Committee of the Alaska Republican Party. It’s worth it to me to make a stand for Liberty, but it’s a risk to consider. I do not want to see us lose all the progress we have made in the Republican or other parties, so I hope most people with hard won positions will keep them, and let the rest of us campaign for Liberty, Peace, and Sound Money.

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement.

The Early Hours of September 3rd, 2012.

This site is dedicated to a Paul-Johnson or Johnson-Paul ticket for the 2012 presidential race. There is no intent to disenfranchise voters or campaign contributors, pressure candidates or staffers, or anger the grassroots or the electorate. There is only the desire to create a winning ticket by asking Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and/or the Libertarian Party to make accommodations to the Ron Paul camp. This does not mean anyone should blackmail or belittle or berate the Gary Johnson team, but simply that we should ask them to weigh the requests and arguments and decide, voluntarily for themselves to potentially forgo one or both of their chances of becoming the president or vice president, for the sake of the cause. For those Libertarian Party members out there who find this idea reprehensible, I respect their rights, but I question their reasoning. I am certainly not for winning at all costs under any circumstances, but I am for asking all the candidates and officials in question to consider the merits of proposals such as what will be posted and promoted on this blog. Namely that the Libertarian Party make room for Ron Paul.

First, and hardest of all to accomplish would be having both Gary Johnson and Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can be placed at the top of the ticket and Gary Johnson at the bottom. Secondly, perhaps easier but still likely to elicit an initial backlash if not permanently damaged relationships between lovers of Liberty would be to have Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can take his place at the bottom of the ticket. And thirdly, would be to have Gary Johnson and/or Jim Gray and/or the Libertarian Party promise to appoint Ron Paul to a cabinet level position. There may be the chance that they plan on doing this anyway, but were they to make the promise, and to contact Ron Paul directly about it, before the November election, preferably soon, it could boost their polling numbers, their campaign contributions, and their voter turnout by a considerable margin. Enough to get media attention. Enough to make it into the debates. Enough to compete. Enough to win.

There will always be those die hard Ron Paul supporters, some of whom like Gary Johnson, and some of whom just don’t trust him, that do not plan on voting for Gary Johnson for a variety of reasons. This is their right. All men should be free to vote their conscience. Ridiculing them for this serves no purpose but to alienate you from them and them from you. How does this promote the cause of Liberty? But the numbers of such stubborn people would decrease considerably were they to be given some reassurances. These might include acquiescence to one of the aforementioned proposals, an endorsement of Gary Johnson by Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson convincing people of how much he and Ron Paul have in common, in spite of Gary Johnson’s perceived, though relative, ignorance or halfheartedness on so many issues ranging from the Natural Law to Economics to the Constitution to Foreign Policy to the War on Drugs.

If all of this could only come about at greater cost to the Liberty movement than benefit, the very idea should be cast aside lest a schism rends all that we have fought for asunder. Such rifts only occur for ideological reasons, and even then rarely. They should not be found to arise between former comrades who merely disagree on a few items of strategy.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, great or small, positive or negative. Please note that none of these things are originally my idea. I simply felt compelled by recent events (namely the Evan Alaska Conference Calls, one the night of September 2nd, and another on the night of September 6th, as well as rumors on the DailyPaul that gained traction after the Convention and particularly with the news of Ron Paul’s September 4th appearance on Jay Leno) and the hard work of others to become a part of this. For the record, I am a Ron Paul supporter who likes Gary Johnson but remains wary of him. I don’t even know that I could vote for him without some of the above requests being granted.

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement

PaulJohnson 2012 Mission Statement.

The Early Hours of September 3rd, 2012.

This site is dedicated to a Paul-Johnson or Johnson-Paul ticket for the 2012 presidential race. There is no intent to disenfranchise voters or campaign contributors, pressure candidates or staffers, or anger the grassroots or the electorate. There is only the desire to create a winning ticket by asking Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and/or the Libertarian Party to make accommodations to the Ron Paul camp. This does not mean anyone should blackmail or belittle or berate the Gary Johnson team, but simply that we should ask them to weigh the requests and arguments and decide, voluntarily for themselves to potentially forgo one or both of their chances of becoming the president or vice president, for the sake of the cause. For those Libertarian Party members out there who find this idea reprehensible, I respect their rights, but I question their reasoning. I am certainly not for winning at all costs under any circumstances, but I am for asking all the candidates and officials in question to consider the merits of proposals such as what will be posted and promoted on this blog. Namely that the Libertarian Party make room for Ron Paul.

First, and hardest of all to accomplish would be having both Gary Johnson and Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can be placed at the top of the ticket and Gary Johnson at the bottom. Secondly, perhaps easier but still likely to elicit an initial backlash if not permanently damaged relationships between lovers of Liberty would be to have Jim Gray step down so that Ron Paul can take his place at the bottom of the ticket. And thirdly, would be to have Gary Johnson and/or Jim Gray and/or the Libertarian Party promise to appoint Ron Paul to a cabinet level position. There may be the chance that they plan on doing this anyway, but were they to make the promise, and to contact Ron Paul directly about it, before the November election, preferably soon, it could boost their polling numbers, their campaign contributions, and their voter turnout by a considerable margin. Enough to get media attention. Enough to make it into the debates. Enough to compete. Enough to win.

There will always be those die hard Ron Paul supporters, some of whom like Gary Johnson, and some of whom just don’t trust him, that do not plan on voting for Gary Johnson for a variety of reasons. This is their right. All men should be free to vote their conscience. Ridiculing them for this serves no purpose but to alienate you from them and them from you. How does this promote the cause of Liberty? But the numbers of such stubborn people would decrease considerably were they to be given some reassurances. These might include acquiescence to one of the aforementioned proposals, an endorsement of Gary Johnson by Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson convincing people of how much he and Ron Paul have in common, in spite of Gary Johnson’s perceived, though relative, ignorance or halfheartedness on so many issues ranging from the Natural Law to Economics to the Constitution to Foreign Policy to the War on Drugs.

If all of this could only come about at greater cost to the Liberty movement than benefit, the very idea should be cast aside lest a schism rends all that we have fought for asunder. Such rifts only occur for ideological reasons, and even then rarely. They should not be found to arise between former comrades who merely disagree on a few items of strategy.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, great or small, positive or negative. Please note that none of these things are originally my idea. I simply felt compelled by recent events (namely the Evan Alaska Conference Calls, one the night of September 2nd, and another on the night of September 6th, as well as rumors on the DailyPaul that gained traction after the Convention and particularly with the news of Ron Paul’s September 4th appearance on Jay Leno) and the hard work of others to become a part of this. For the record, I am a Ron Paul supporter who likes Gary Johnson but remains wary of him. I don’t even know that I could vote for him without some of the above requests being granted.

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot – Click on Link for Hyperlinked Version

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Vice Presidential Slot – Click on Link for Hyperlinked Version.

How to Achieve Draft Ron Paul to Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Slot 4 Pages

Abortion, Religion, and the Presidency by Laurence M. Vance

Abortion, Religion, and the Presidency by Laurence M. Vance.

Here is a LewRockwell.com piece from Laurence M. Vance that makes the case that a President who is pro-choice, particularly if it is not a main item on his agenda, won’t have much effect on the issue. Nor will a pro-life President. Something to consider for Ron Paul supporters wary of Gary Johnson.

Abortion, Religion, and the Presidency by Laurence M. Vance.

Abortion, Religion, and the Presidency

by Laurence M. Vance

Recently by Laurence M. Vance: Libertarianism and Abortion

Some Republicans have floated the name of Condoleezza Rice to be the running mate of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Rice was a professor at Stanford before serving as the national security adviser in George W. Bush’s first term and the secretary of state in his second. During both terms, she was a leading voice for the war in Iraq. She has since returned to Stanford.

Rice received a standing ovation at last month’s weekend retreat for high dollar Romney donors. Charles Cobb, who served as U.S. ambassador to Iceland from 1989 to 1992, said Rice was “spectacular” and described her as a “very bright, sophisticated, articulate lady.”

In a recent survey by Fox News, Rice was favored by Republicans to be Romney’s running mate. Next in line were Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Chris Christie, and Rep. Paul Ryan. At the bottom of the pack were Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Rob Portman, and former governor and presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. These men – sans Christie – are considered by some to be Romney’s “final five.”

Some conservatives are upset that Rice would even be considered, not because she was a leading architect of Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, but because she is “mildly pro-choice” on abortion.

In a March 11, 2005 interview with the Washington Times, Rice explained why, as “a deeply religious person” she was nonetheless “pro-choice” on abortion. “What is your thought on abortion?” a reporter asked Rice. She replied:

I believe – if you go back to 2000 when I helped the President in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that, that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I am a strong proponent of parental choice – of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that’s where we should be. I’ve called myself at times mildly pro-choice.

And then added:

I am very comfortable with the President’s view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, “Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?”

And so I am a – I believe the President has been in exactly the right place about this, which is we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.

What I do think is that we should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other. So, for instance, I’ve tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it.

Rice clarified her position in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” just two days later. Asked host Tim Russert: “You told the Washington Times on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?” Said Rice: “It means that, like many Americans, I find the issue of abortion very difficult. I believe it ought to be as rare as possible. Nobody wants to see anyone go through that. I favor parental notification. I favor a ban on late-term abortion. But I, myself, am not a fan of having the government intervene in the laws.” “You would not outlaw it?” asked Russet. “No,” said Rice.

I think it is virtually certain that Romney would never name a vice presidential candidate who was not pro-life. He recently told a town-hall audience in Ohio: “I can assure you that even though I have not chosen the person that will be my vice president, that person will be a conservative; they will believe in conservative principles.” Although conservatives are low on principle these days, opposition to abortion is certainly still a conservative principle. (Regarding Rice’s quip about being “libertarian on this issue,” I recently argued that I see nothing libertarian about a woman choosing to kill her unborn child for getting in the way of her lifestyle.)

But should naming a pro-choice running mate be a reason to not vote for Romney? The same question might also be asked concerning the view on abortion of a presidential candidate. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, is pro-choice on abortion. Is that a reason to not vote for him? (Obama and Biden are also pro-choice, but since I can’t imagine anyone with half a brain voting for them, I will leave them out of the abortion discussion.)

The same type of questions might be asked when it comes to religion. For the second time in less than a year, the Gallup poll is reporting that a majority of Americans (54 percent) would vote for an atheist for president. This is the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1958. The percentage then was only 18 percent. In another recent poll, less than half of voters considered Obama to be a Christian. Romney’s faith has likewise been disparaged because he is a Mormon. But is a candidate’s religion reason enough not to vote for him?

Although I am both pro-life and a conservative Christian, my answer to all these questions is a no.

Take, for example, someone else who is also pro-life and a conservative Christian – Republican presidential candidate/hopeful Ron Paul. Here are some of the statements he has made on the subject of abortion:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.

And regarding funding for Planned Parenthood:

I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes. Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars. As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of abortions, so-called “family planning” services and international abortionists.

Dr. Paul has also said of his personal faith:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

Now, if Ron Paul announced tomorrow that he was pro-choice and an atheist, but that he had not changed any other of his views, I would support him just as highly as I do now. Sure, I would be disappointed in him, and so would many others, but it wouldn’t affect my unwavering support for him because of his libertarian principles.

But don’t we need pro-life Republican presidents so they can appoint pro-life conservatives to the Supreme Court? You mean like Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, who was appointed by President Nixon and confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 94-0? The Republican nominee for president the last time was John McCain. If he was so pro-life then why did he vote to confirm to the U.S. Supreme Court pro-abortion justices like Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter? Why did he consider the pro-abortion senator Joe Lieberman for his running mate? Why has he voted for Health and Human Services Title X funding for Planned Parenthood?

And speaking of Planned Parenthood – the nation’s leading abortion provider – here is a blog post I made on April 28, 2010:

I have seen it reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on the Planned Parenthood website. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

Some Republicans are still wanting to continue Title X family planning funding and even worse things like the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) and international population control through Medicaid and foreign aid programs.

It is a myth that we need to put pro-life Republicans in office from the president on down so they can use their power to try to limit abortions and funding for abortions. Republicans have failed miserably to do either of these things.

Republicans need Roe v. Wade. Not because they want their wives and daughters to have access to “safe and legal” abortions, but because they need the promise of overturning it to sucker the “pro-life” faithful to vote for them instead of those evil “pro-choice” Democrats.

But even if a Republican president were solidly pro-life, appointed real pro-life judges, and vetoed any and all funding for “family planning,” that in and of itself would not be reason enough to vote for him. We live in a welfare/warfare police state where the Constitution is continually violated, civil liberties are in grave peril, wealth is redistributed on a grand scale, foreign policy is an abomination, and government spending, regulating, and legislating are out of control. A pro-life president who perpetuates these things is just as evil as a pro-choice president who does so. Abortion is primarily a moral problem that can never be solved by government.

And it is also true that if a Republican president were pro-choice, that in and of itself would not be reason enough to not vote for him. The presidency pays well enough that we don’t need to worry about him moonlighting as an abortionist, although I’m sure he would have a lot of customers in Washington DC since it has the highest abortion/birth ratio in the United States. He couldn’t keep Roe v. Wadefrom being overturned by the Supreme Court. He couldn’t further liberalize state abortion laws. He couldn’t legalize something that is already legal. He couldn’t veto a constitutional amendment banning abortion since such congressional resolutions are not presented to the president for his approval. If a pro-choice president actually manifested fidelity to the Constitution, civil liberties, private property, individual liberty, peace, the free market, and real limitations on the size and scope of government, he would be infinitely better than the most ardent pro-life one.

And the same goes for a president who was an atheist and not a Christian.

The reason to not vote for Obama and Biden or Romney and any Republican talked about as his running mate is because they are all socialist, fascist, police statist warmongers, not because of the presence or absence of any pro-life credentials.

July 30, 2012

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn’t, and Rethinking the Good War. His latest book is The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Laurence M. Vance