Hmmm, Doctor Delusional’s campaign is wondering why they aren’t winning any caucuses or primaries:
BOISE, Idaho — Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.
Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.
Paul may still emerge with a big chunk of delegates in the GOP nominating race, but the candidate’s much-hyped focus on caucus states has yet to yield an outright victory in any state.
This gap between dreams and reality came to a head during a Wednesday morning conference call for senior staff when the discussion turned to why the campaign keeps underperforming its own forecasts.
“They count the numbers and then they count the votes,” said Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser who was on the call. “Did they get overconfident? … We’re digesting that.”
Go here to read the rest. The truth of course is that it is fun visiting the freak show, but few people actually want the two headed goat running the circus.
“Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many” (Hebrews 12:14,15).
Does Dr. Paul owe you money?
It sounds a bit personal here. I believe that his, and our, common enemy is President Caiaphas and the Peoples’ Democratic Pharisee Party. Regardless of how offbeat he might be, if he is not winning, then what’s the issue? He’s not taking delegates from Sen. Santorum in any large volume.
We’ll need every vote we can get in November. Keeping that fringe in the numbers count is essential. Elitism and dismissive derision never generate the desired outcomes. Most of all, remember the Reagan Rule.
Thanks.
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31,32).
“Does Dr. Paul owe you money?”
Only for his wasting of the time of the conservative movement for the past few decades. Loons like Paul have always been the bane of the conservative cause. He was the featured speaker a few years ago at the Fiftieth Anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society. Fools like Doctor Delusional have always walked arm in arm with the Left in efforts to make conservatism seem ridiculous. You cite Reagan. Ron Paul thought that Reagan was such a poor president that he resigned from the Republican party during his term in office. Would that Ron Paul would do so again.
It’s interesting in how you framed his rallies, a freak show. Each and every time I see him on television I picture him with a clown suit on and makeup.
I think the best way to explain the disconnect is that the Idea of Paul is very, very intriguing–and energizing–to a lot of young people, but the actual candidate falls short. It’s silly to discount his ability to fill a decent-sized arena wherever he goes.
Insert qualifier….now.
But the man himself is not the horse to draw his own cart. I do think his baggage is a more serious problem than they want to admit, and the perceived/actual alliance with Romney does not help.
The messenger is inadequate to advance the message to the next stage. Whereas his senatorial son just might be able to do so.
I think Rand Paul has a bright future ahead of him Dale, once his father is safely in retirement.
Yes trying to solve OUR domestic problems first is WACKO!! Putting OUR border security first is INSANE! Borrowing more money from China , continuing to expand government and sending off even more young Americans to die for more failed foreign policies, now THAT’S pure genius. I guess I havent read you enough as I thought this was a conservative blog, but if yours is the republican mindset we’re in big , big trouble. I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE that runs against the current Totalitarian in the oval office. Your comments have me thinking for the first time , “why bother”?
Pammie, Ron Paul is an isolationist, conspiracy believing, crank who has no legislation of note to his credit after more than two decades of keeping a seat warm in Congress. His Paulbot followers are given to chant “Ron Paul Revolution, Give Us Back Our Constitution”! That is risible because all that can be shown for Ron Paul’s political career is nothing. He never led any effective movement in Congress. He has been a total lone wolf. He has done zero to effectively reduce the size and scope of government. His specialty has been to give a platform for every wacked out conspiracy theory imaginable from the fringe right. He has as much to do with conservatism as Bill Clinton has with chastity.
I go into greater detail in regard to Doctor Delusional at the link below:
https://the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/29/yep-ron-paul-r-pluto-is-pretty-much-of-a-wackdoodle-isolationist/
Having read your comments on Dr. Paul, let me tell you a few reasons why I find him appealing: 1) he hasnt been purchased by any lobby (to my knowledge) unlike ALL the other candidates bought and paid for , including the POTUS. 2) He is for limited governmental interference in the day to day life of Americans citizens. 3) He understands and abides by the Just War teachings of the RC Church. 4) He understands the importance of the Constitution as a deterrent to governmental power and protection of the citizenry 5) He is more concerned with protecting the borders of the USA than the borders of Israel or Pakistan. 6) He understands how fearmongering has been used to undermine basic American freedoms. These are all concerns that speak loudly to me. If caring about these issues designate me in your opinion as a “Paulbot” then so be it. I’m not trying to change your mind regarding Dr. Paul. But I am telling you what attracts me to him. Which one, in your opinion, would NOT be a traditional conservative position? Perhaps your candidate would be happy to lose RP voters and are contemptuous of these issues, and maybe you find them valueless, fringe right wing or just plain nutty…surely a judgement call every one must make. But invective such as yours and a refusal to speak to these issues in other candidates’ platforms doenst give us who share them much incentive to vote for them. Politics is all about compromise, but when legitimate voter issues are summarily dismissed, there isnt any room for compromise be it republican or democrat, for they are all candidates on the same disasterous course.
Pammie-
the part where we “limit” the gov’t interference when it comes to defining who is a legally protected human?
The part where he wants to abandon those we’ve made promises to– like Japan? (Oops, sorry you don’t have a military– sucks to be you! Hope you manage something before China eats your lunch!)
#1 would be hard to prove, #3 is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” #4 I’m not so sure about since he won’t argue for it to apply to all Americans, #5 implies that isn’t so for others– which is simply laughable, and #6 can mean just about anything.
Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will. There are a couple of options for why he’d make that argument– three that come to mind: he doesn’t actually believe the unborn are persons; he doesn’t believe all persons have a right to not be killed; he’s not willing to argue for that whole shall not be deprived of life or liberty thing when it will hurt him politically– and none of those options are very respectable, especially when his whole shtick is how he’s the brave defender of American idealism.
“Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will.”
Yet trying to elect national politicians who claim to be prolife hasnt worked either has it? My state would at once put into laws restricting abortion, as most of the citizens are against it, were it not for the behemoth federal government . There is more than one way to accomplish a goal, is there not? Particularly when the old method hasnt worked in 40 years. All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record. I personally dont believe we need to finance the world’s defenses, particularly as we are in the middle of a financial crisis ourselves and borrowing money from our biggest creditor to stay afloat. That is pure madness ….like falling behind on your own living expenses but borrowing money to help out a stranger to pay for his security system so he can have more disposable income to spend on other things. What sane person would do that? How has Europe managed to fund its widespread socialism since WWII ? Those missles cost lots of American taxpayer dollars and many manhours of American labour. Makes sense to you folks one supposes , but not me.
Pammie-
why are you trying to change the subject?
He has stated that the states should decide what humans are not really people, which is not “the best way to protect the unborn is on a state-by-state level,” nor “the people of the states should be able to defend human life without being prevented from doing so by the Feds.”
All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record.
Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.
Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome by mentioning an approach that was different than the one you espouse …one that has proven to be a failure so far. But we can give it another 40 years and hope for a different outcome instead of trying a different approach.
“Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.”
Really? Your response for my #3 was “…is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” That’s an opinion based solely on your perception, not a rebuttal or statement of another candidate’s similar view or knowledge of me. RP’s stand on war in Iraq ( whether or not he “likes” Iraq would not be relevent) is a matter of public record and was essentially the same as the Pope’s . My personal view is that it was a stupid, pointless war, wasteful of human lives and resources and frankly has nothing to do with “Just War” theology. Our interests there are in worse shape now than before. Not to mention the plight of Iraqi Christians , which Republicans & Democrats are both strangely silent about.
Like I said at the beginning, my intention in bringing up these issues is not to convince you or anyone . But these are what draws me to RP as he is the only one who is willing to bring them up in debate. We are sinking as a society and our attentions are on nonexistent enemies a world away. That “crazy RP” and all the rest of us “Paulbots”–we just keep wringing our hands on how to pay for it all and watching our personal freedoms decline as the massive federal bureacracy grows by leaps and bounds. Meanwhile yall keep your attentions glued on Iran and Syria et al and continue to congratulate yourselves that you are not as foolish as we.
Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome …
Mrs (thus the fox-girl in a sailor girl outfit in my icon… *squints* although that might be a bit small to see at a glance) and it’s changing the topic because we weren’t talking about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome. We were either talking about Ron Paul in relation to the unborn, or my newish lack of respect for him based on his rhetoric while trying to get elected.
My sincere apologies MRS. Foxfier. I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished. I’m willing to settle. RP’s idea offers an alternative to the unsuccessful thinking of the past and a hope of a little faster change and at least a few more lives snatched from a certain and brutal death. Havent heard anything forthcoming from any of the other candidates on how this can be accomplished in a more timely way. Have a great evening.
I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished.
And… again… changing the subject….
Quibbling over semantics. How many babies will die before the Supreme Court can be stacked to overturn RoevWade or an amendment can be worded just right and passed by a two thirds majority ? What is Santorum’s, Gingrich or Mitt’s plan to accomplish this? Taking the power FROM the federal government in this and other issues (like many states are doing with Same Sex “Marriage”) might have a shot. But I guess I understand your point: RP didnt say he was prolife in the way you wanted him to express it. OK . Got your point. My point is : Saving some babies is better than saving no babies.
I am seriously dense.
Can someone explain to me how Ron Paul differs from Lyndon Larouche?
How can RP get the abortion thing down to the States where it can be outlawed? It’s been ruled as a “right” by the SC. How is RP not delusional for this impossible stance?
RP opposes nearly all Federal powers. That’s not the same as pro-life.
Who is Lyndon Larouche ? Does he also serve as pebble in your shoe or a splinter in your index finger?
Ron Paul’s “Sanctity of Life Act” is purported to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts. I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work.
The bill (introduced many times over his tenure) basically states that the fetus is human or a person. It says that states have the authority to protect life. If we have a human person in utero, why then is this person not granted equal protection under the 14th amendment?
Even though the bill is unique in its approach, it is fundamentally flawed. A self-proclaimed champion of the Constitution should do better.
“I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work”
It wouldn’t. The Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional in a nano-second, as the Court simply would not allow Congress to reverse it by stripping it of jurisdiction in an area as this bill seeks to do.
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.”
There are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts
Thanks, Donald. Now if this had been dealing with Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws, I could easily understand. 🙂 But that’s just the electrical engineer in me…
Thank God the mysteries of your field do not come up on this blog Big Tex, or I would have to stand ingloriously mute! 🙂
Quibbling over semantics.
Dang straight I point out when a claim doesn’t match what the words actually mean. Part of the reason Ronulans are so disliked is because of the gap between what they want and what is. That gap isn’t bridged by yelling that it doesn’t exist.
And no, Pammie or pammie or pamelanak or whoever, I did not say “RP didn’t say he’s pro-life the way I wanted.”
I pointed out that there are three possible conclusions from his stated desire to push definition of what humans are people whose lives are protected under law down to a state level, and none of them got any respect from me.
PM-
Lyndon Larouche is the guy who’s like Ron Paul, but more popular to the left. They’re outside of post offices and stuff doing Truther outreach a lot in the Seattle area around Christmas. (not sure what the rest of their stuff is– I was kind of in a hurry, and Trutherism makes me sputter a lot*; lots of Infowars bumper stickers, though, and they seemed to dislike the UN, so not all bad….)
*statements like “fire can’t melt steel!” do have that effect on me, especially if screamed in my face.
During the run up to Obamacare, they would come to townhall meetings hosted by legislators and hold up their posters with a picture of Obama with Hitler mustaches. Fringe nut-jobs, as Foxfier has indicated.
Foxfier, Thank you. (Should have looked it up, and all, but computer seems to dislike the internet connection lately and gets testy when I move places and click & I’m not tech-y)
They sound big city – or college. Anyway, stay strong.
PM-
part of why the info I offered is so sketchy is because when I tried to look him up, I got a really wide range of stuff, the only one of which I recognized has, as its entire point, being nasty with a mainline liberal edge. (Think “The Daily Show” amateurs.)
The only things I know about him is the stuff I passed on. (In defense of the folks that I saw, they seemed very earnest and polite…but I didn’t stop and disagree with them, so who’ll know.)
Gee whiz Foxfier, Foxlier or whoever. Do you have anger issues or something? It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement. Your candidate might need the support of the people with whom you have been so snarky and dismissive . All these nasty, snotty attitudes from Republicans (minus the “Paulbots”) makes me want to stay home on election day anyway….and just when I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE who opposes Obama. Good job convincing me otherwise and good luck getting your candidate elected without the help of the “disliked Ronulans” and all the other people you also despise.
It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.
Great idea– have you considered trying it?
Failing that, make arguments in support of your statements, with facts and logic, without having to misrepresent others involved. I can handle being called names, no problem, but not much I can do if you can’t be bothered to make an argument.
Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.
Donald McClarey, Thank you. I appreciate your givng me the clarity on Ron Paul’s bill: “Their are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts” Since all men are created equal and We hold these truth to be self-evident, then the newly begotten human being is no less equal a person than the person on the Supreme Court for the United States of America. So, you are correct, Donald. Perhaps when the human being’s personhood is acknowleged as being preeminent, the Person of our Creator will be no longer be prohibited in the public square, and our plagues and problems will be placed in the hands of Divine Providence, as was first inscribed in our founding principles. My son, Nelson and myself were discussing Ron Paul, and he compared Ron Paul’s candidacy with Ross Perot’s. It is believed that our culture would not be atheistic (read homicidal, Obama wants no more snowflake babies standing up and or abortion survivors. Obama has ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed) had Perot been elected. I do not know, but at least now, I understand where Paul is coming from. For myself I am looking at Santorum and Chris Smith of NJ as VP. The American Catholic is human.
Me: “It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.”
Foxfier: “Great idea– have you considered trying it?”
The juvenile, snarky comeback rather proves my point dont you think?
“Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.”
I expect this makes sense to you but what it has to do with me I’m not quite sure. If it is a concern of yours, my reason for posting here was to get feedback and maybe some info about other candidates’ views on the things that concern me from people who are supporting them . Didnt attack you or anyone else and I really wasnt looking to incite a hissy fit , get a critique of my mental skills or a judgement as to my poor value to RP from a total stranger with a rancourous attitude .
Thank you Mr. McClarey for the explanation regarding RP’s strategy for ending abortion. I can see now where the flaw in that is now, so this hasnt been a total waste of time.
Announcement: I am now taking my ball and going home.
I sometimes wonder if the reason so many are annoyed by Ronulans is because of the huge amounts of apparently unintentional irony….
“to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity.” …from The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, the stated purpose and intent of the Constitution. Before the Amendments to protect the human person as being created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by our CREATOR, the words “our” (not theirs, but our) “posterity” all future generations to come, each and every newly begotten sovereign person endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (a man’s destiny) is accounted for and provided for in our Constitution. In Roe, one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read 2) did not comprehend what our Constitution intended. 3) were prejudiced against the unborn because of their lack of faith in and reliance on Divine Providence of The Declaration of Independence, the same Divine Providence Who delivered the colonist from the hands of the British and established the United States as a bastion of Freedom, the FREEDOM endowed by our CREATOR. 4) Lusted for power and worshipped at the feet of mammon and Moleck and kissed the devil’s face, the face the devil wears and speaks through on his butt. I prefer to think it is the forth option, that the utilitarianism and LUST for power and greed collapsed any reason of their rational soul into the garbage of Roe v. Wade. Before the babies were thrown into the garbage, the Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade threw reason , Justice and our America into the garbage. IT IS A REVERSAL OF ROE BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT NEEDS TO BE. In addition, an amendment to the fact, so it never happens again.
“one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read”
It was nine men on the Roe court in 1973. Two justices dissented: William Rehnquist and Byron White. From a legal standpoint the problem with Roe was that the court majority simply created a right out of thin air. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any government from banning it. Even many pro-abortion legal scholars have admitted that it was a decision without legal basis. As Justice White wrote in his famous dissent in Roe:
“With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
Donald McClarey: A senior moment on my part. My respect for Byron White, and William Rehnquist has never failed. May God bless you for this beautiful work. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins. Mother and child are persons first, citizens second. The Constitution can only judge citizens, as is verifiable by the lack of authority to judge foreigners and those with diplomatic immunity, citizens of other countries. The unborn are citizens of “nature and nature’s God”. “My kingdom is not of this world” God bless.
At what point does a person become a citizen? When the person is born into the world or is naturalized. The unborn sovereign person cannot be tried in any court of law, because the unborn sovereign person is not yet a citizen of the United States of America, until after he comes into the world and breathes his first breath and is given a birth certificate. At this point, the born person becomes a citizen. Roe v. Wade tried a person who was not a citizen of the United States. ..and ordered his death before he could become a citizen. The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens.
Given that the Supreme Court for the United States of American may only interpret the Constitution for the United States of America for American citizens, not for foreign dignitaries and sovereign persons with sovereign immunity, the citizen of the world and universe, Jesus Christ in His human nature, in His innocent citizenship cannot be banned from the public square unless it is proved that Jesus Christ, as a citizen, violated the law and became criminal. Then and only then, will the human nature of Jesus Christ, as a man, become “persona non grata.” The Person of Jesus Christ WHO is God , Who is perfectly, immutably innocent and Love, cannot be proved, in a court of law, to be criminal.
The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot try citizens of another kingdom, “not of this world”, the sovereign citizens of heaven, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, and His Father and His Holy Spirit of Love. Nor can the U.S. Supreme Court try the Person of Jesus Christ, WHO is God. The Supreme Court has found Jesus Christ guilty by association with criminals on Golgatha.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the self-proclaimed atheist sued to have all mankind’s First Amendment rights to FREEDOM subjugated to her lawsuit through her complaint that prayer to God, through Jesus Christ offended her son. An imperfect human nature, who is offended by perfection.
If Madalyn Murray O’Hair was truly an atheist, she would have annihilated her own being. God, our Creator, made all things and KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE, therefore, Madalyn Murray O’Hair at some underlying level of consciousness, accepted God’s love for her and for her son. Madalyn Murray O’Hair spoke perjury in The United States Supreme Court, when, as an atheist she said: “I AM an atheist.” The atheist used God’s name: “I AM”, in vain and contradicted herself. Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not prove her case as perjurers never do.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not have two witnesses to establish a judicial fact. Two atheists cannot bear the Truth into a court of law. Perjury does not count.
more threadbare clarification:
The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become, at birth, citizens of the United States of America.
The Supreme Court for the United States of America is the personification of JUSTICE, the interpreter of The Constitution for the United States of America and the dispenser of JUSTICE to the common man, each and every American citizen. The JUSTICES are given compensation. JUSTICE is priceless. The Court has no jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, ambassadors with diplomatic immunity and sovereign persons who are citizens of other sovereign nations.
A human being comes into existence at the will of God (and man when two become one at procreation) through the laws of nature and nature’s God. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The newly begotten sovereign person endowed by our Creator with life is granted citizenship in America upon being brought to birth and breathing his first breath in the world, until then, this sovereign person is a citizen of nature and nature’s God. Before becoming an American citizen at birth, this sovereign person’s endowed rights are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order. Upon becoming an American citizen, this sovereign person’s civil rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the pursuit of his destiny, are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order.
Roe v. Wade had no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the woman’s womb, a citizen of nature and nature’s God. One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the womb and who has not been born into the country and is not yet a citizen.
The Supreme Court denied existence to the sovereign person in the womb, which is perjury by the JUSTICES and miscarriage of JUSTICE by Roe v. Wade. If there were no human existence in the womb there would be no abortion. Blobs of cells, tumors do not have sovereign personhood from conception and can never be born into citizenship.
Why, then, one might ask, can the court order surgery to protect the life of the newly begotten in the womb or charge homicide in the death of the unborn, if the court has no jurisdiction over the newly begotten? It is because the legal and moral innocence of the unborn is the standard of JUSTICE for the state and the unborn constitute the state by their very existence. It is because any law can be broken to save the life of a human being.”You shall not stand idly by while your neighbor’s life is in jeopardy.”
Damage that has not yet happened cannot be proved in a court of law. Destruction of the sovereign person of the unborn is a crime against the laws of nature and nature’s God.
The absolute stupidity of Thomas Malthus in his demographics for his not factoring in Divine Providence, our CREATOR, into his numbers, and the abject ignorance of John Mills in his utilitarianism for his not factoring Divine Providence into his philosophy, and the criminal negligence of Paul Erlich for his not factoring in Divine Providence into his book: “Population Bomb” render their unsubstantiated conclusions invalid. Thomas Malthus and John Mills are facing the wrath of God as I write and Divine Justice will find Paul Erlich for the half-truths he is propagating.
Charles Darwin did not factor in Divine Providence into his theory of evolution rendering his work lacking in integrity.
The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become at birth citizens of the United States of America.