John Ashcroft, Like Gonzales, Also Rolled Over, Played Dead on Roe v. Wade

[TheGeneral]

In his opening remarks at his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft referred to Roe v. Wade as having "established a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion" --- which is false. This decision "established" nothing; it simply invented and asserted such a "right."

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=225

[Areopagus]

In his opening remarks at his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft referred to Roe v. Wade as having "established a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion" --- which is false. This decision "established" nothing; it simply invented and asserted such a "right."

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=225
Ashcroft replies, in part: “My opposition to the aborting of unborn children has been a deeply held position of mine….I have voted on numerous occasions for rape and incest exceptions and have voted for much broader exceptions than that. One time when I was governor I proposed that we only ban second abortions or abortions for second or third times. We banned abortions for racially mixed children, because people were wanting to abort a child for being racially mixed, or we banned abortions for sex selection.



Would Ashcroft vote to abort himself, if he had been conceived in such a manner?


Schwarz, Chapter 10: "Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, Health and Life of the Woman?" www.ohiolife.org/mqa/10-0.asp

Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg19.html

Robert Hart, "Her Mother's Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.1docs/17-1pg18.html

Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion's House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2001-01/14-20.asp

David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). http://www.afterabortion.info/Victims/

[exmarine]

[QUOTE=Areopagus]Would Ashcroft vote to abort himself, if he had been conceived in such a manner?

What does he care - he's already born. Anyone who believes having a rapist as a father is a capital offense, is not pro-life.

The Republican Party plank makes these exceptions. Of course, that means the GOP is NOT pro-life either, so Ashcroft fit right in!

[Areopagus]

The Republican Party plank makes these exceptions. Of course, that means the GOP is NOT pro-life either, so Ashcroft fit right in!

The GOP position on abortion could be translated as “safe, legal, and rare ?” Ashcroft says that Roe is settled law, and is for exceptions. Others are attempting to get the abortuaries up to minimum medical standards. Looks like the defacto position of both parties is identical:

Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

…."I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," Clinton declared. Many reporters touted that line as an olive branch. They overlooked her next sentence: "But that does not represent even the majority opinion within the anti-abortion community. There are exceptions for rape and for incest, for the life of the mother." In other words, Clinton has read the polls. She knows that most people who oppose abortion think it should be allowed for rape victims, because these victims didn't choose to have sex. From a crude standpoint of sexual responsibility, they're innocent. http://www.slate.com/id/2112712/

Clinton/Ashcroft in 2008? Only thing to decide is which party.

[bluebird]

I continue to ask:

Why is it that the majority of members of both parties do not realize that the Democrats and Republicans are one and the same party? Why are they politically blind?

Also, from a Biblical point of view, would most christians within the Constitution Party feel that they are being allowed to continue in their political (or spiritual) blindness for a specific purpose that would serve a greater good later? If so, what could that be? And second, could it be they are choosing their own blindess by virtue of greed, complacency, self-indulgence, etc... and cannot anticipate the flood while we (the Constitution Party) continue to build the Ark?

Any insights?

[Paul]

As John Lofton always points out, the chearleaders continue to chear for their side. We've got Christians getting their political points of view from Rush, Hannity, and the ACLJ... of course they are going to stay on the Republican team. It's like a saying by Redsox fans: It's a good day when the Sox win, it's a great day when the Yankees lose. So the chearleaders on both sides of the field point to the evil on the other side while ignoring the demons running their own team.

I praise God for the work of the CP party and for the TAV radio show. (As well as the Michael Savage show - which seems to see right through the political haze... although he did back Bush) Without it, I would still be an ignorant Republican..."it's what you know, that just aint so!"

[Areopagus]

I continue to ask:

Why is it that the majority of members of both parties do not realize that the Democrats and Republicans are one and the same party? Why are they politically blind?


They have several boxes that tell them exactly what to think. The T.V. box forbids them to think outside the anti-Constitutional box.

Mr. Chairman, as a nonlawyer, I count it a high privilege to serve as a Member of this Subcommittee. However, as a student of the United States Constitution, I would not be truthful if I said that I have always understood as perceived by this nonlawyer to be a disconnect between the plain wording and construction of the Constitution and the opinions handed down by the Federal judiciary as, quote, ''constitutional,'' end quote.

But this perceived disconnect was explained to me with such clarity by, and rightfully so, a lawyer when I read the testimony of Dr. Leo Graglia, before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, of May 15, 1997. Dr. Graglia, who is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas law school, profoundly observed that, quote, ''the first and most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution,'' end quote. At that point, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized that I cannot confuse what is taught in our Nation's law schools and what is expounded by so-called constitutional scholars on the 24-hour news talk shows with the work of folks like Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Washington, and others at Philadelphia in 1787, or for that matter the first Congress in 1789 or the 39th Congress in 1866." Mr. HOSTETTLER http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#16

The radio box filled with various programs from Christian conservative organizations forbidding them to think outside the anti-Biblical box:


In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God.

Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.

When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government….”
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom13.htm

Lastly, you have the mail box where the garbage collector frequently dumps all sorts of pleas from conservative Christian organizations to "please vote REBUPLICAN."

All these boxes are owned, and operated by the secular humanist establishment. T.A.V is one of the very few media outlets not subscribing to these anti-Constitutional, anti-American, and anti-Christian terrorist cells.

[bluebird]

Since Scripture teaches that if you Seek the Truth, you shall find it; I must assume that even the so called christian Republicans are not actually seeking the truth. For some reason they seem to not notice that the Republican Party has done precious little to advance their Pro-Life cause. If anything, the Bushes, George and Jeb, stood in the way during the Terry Schiavo fiasco.

You know the political pundits on mainstream media love to refer to the Schiavo case as a "fiasco" implying the right wing was trying to, I guess "activate" Congress into doing something it had no right to do.

Yeah, it was a fiasco all right, Congress hadn't used their check and balance powers for so long, their rusty arms and legs wouldn't sprint when they wanted to. AND, it was such a strange site seeing them attempt to actually "be" the Congress, the Left had a kaniption fit. Ultimately, neither side ended up believing that government was about a basic civil right, if nothing else, the right to life. What a sad commentary.

[Areopagus]

I continue to ask:
Also, from a Biblical point of view, would most christians within the Constitution Party feel that they are being allowed to continue in their political (or spiritual) blindness for a specific purpose that would serve a greater good later? If so, what could that be?
Any insights?

There was, is, and will always be two imperatives that are fully warranted. Without compliance expect nothing, though everything is prayed for. They are based in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal Being who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that anyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. He is fully entitled to the TRUST & OBEDIENCE that He commands!

The Democrat liberals took the political lead in creating an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, and anti-American government. Christian folk began to awaken en mass late in the Carter years. Weyrich, Falwell, Dobson, Wildmon, Robertson, and others counted the DNC too far gone to reform. The GOP was the only other viable alternative at that time. The GOP promised action, and delivered only rhetoric.

The horror of horrors for these folk is to have one major political party against your core beliefs, while the other is at best indifferent after decades of zealous effort. These folk realize the consequences for their children when this nation completely forgets God.

Denial is an unhealthy way of coping with the unthinkable. It takes faith to have the courage to face stark reality. Problem recognition is half the solution. These men of great faith need to face the political reality that duty is ours, and the results belong to God. They simply need to exhibit more faith in God than fear of both political parties. When they start taking the commands of God seriously, then politicians will start to take them seriously.