No Compromise

     It has been the spirit of every great movement to achieve positive change, to abolish an evil, that victory must be pursued whole-heartedly, not with mild compromise. Martin Luther King, Jr., the champion of the civil rights movement in the 1960's, stated that "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy." The abolitionists of a century before him also took the same position, arguing that, as William Lloyd Garrison put it, "I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - and I will be heard!" Across the pond and earlier still, William Wilberforce proposed the same uncompromising bill ending the slave trade entirely every year, and every year saw it voted down. Even though he did eventually compromise and utilize incrementalism to achieve the abolition of the slave trade, he regretted that decision and saw it as the cause of the lengthy continuation of slavery within the British empire. When given a second chance in the fight against slavery he enthusiastically endorsed the position of Garrison and the immediate abolitionists. It is this sort of uncompromising dedication to principle, not twisted politicking, that achieves lasting results.

     Despite this historical fact, there are those who would have us believe that the way to end the evil of abortion is to approach the issue gradually, chipping away at its facade here and there, saving a few lives while abandoning others. That approach is horribly misguided and has hamstrung the pro-life movement for decades. Abortion was foisted on the country gradually, but it will not be abolished gradually, just as slavery was not abolished gradually.

     With that in mind, those who wish to see the end of abortion within our generation must reject the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and refuse to retreat a single inch. We are on the winning side if we just stand our ground. Tom Hoefling, unlike any other presidential candidate, has a plan to achieve the immediate abolition of abortion within the United States. He pledges, if elected, to apply the protections of the 14th amendment to the unborn, beginning by issuing a presidential finding of the self-evident fact that the unborn are persons under the law, then requiring states to offer equal protection under existing laws to the unborn. We can abolish abortion in this generation, but we will not if we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the false promise of gradualism.

For a new birth of freedom!

The Wrong Side of History

"With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." - Mitt Romney

"I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government." - Stephen Douglas

     Mitt Romney's position on abortion is eerily similar to the position of Lincoln's famous opponent in the Illinois Senate race and, later, the presidential race, Stephen Douglas, on slavery. Both men refused to recognize that the source of the right to self-government, which they use to justify their indifference toward eradicating glaring moral problems, is derived from the same source that the right to life and liberty is. If the later is denied the former cannot stand on its own - no man has a right to violate the rights of others. If, as Douglas stated and Romney implied, the "great principle" is the "right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong," we are left at the mercy of the tyranny of the masses, with no natural rights set as limits on what the majority can do.

    Just as the subsequent generations passed a measure of censure on Douglas and recognized that he stood on the wrong side of history when he refused to take a stand against slavery, it will be clear to future generations that Romney also stands on the wrong side of history when he refuses to take a stand against abortion. In the face of great moral issues deference to the whims of the majority will not suffice. History will not remember kindly those who take such a stance, and their own indifference will condemn them.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Abortion Legislation not on the Table

     Yesterday Mitt Romney stated that he would not be in favor of any law regarding abortion. Since the only laws that would be likely to be passed are those banning or regulating abortion, he essentially reiterates his pro-abortion position at the national level. His position on abortion has been clear to those who follow politics, but he had yet to state it so plainly for a general audience. Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that even after so obviously taking a pro-abortion stance he continues to call himself pro-life.

     In the words of Tom Hoefling, "Mitt Romney has no intention of lifting one finger to stop the daily brutal slaughter of thousands of innocent, defenseless, helpless little boys and girls in this country. His every position guarantees the abortion on demand status quo. Honest observers have known this all along. Mitt Romney destroys our republican form of government with his gross judicial supremacist views, and his spurious claim that if a court says it, that’s 'the law.' He destroys the foundational moral, natural law premises of this free republic and our claim to liberty with his claim that abortion should be 'legal' if a democratic majority thinks it is okay. He doesn’t believe in God-given, unalienable rights, not even the supreme right, the right to live. He doesn’t believe in our intrinsic equality before God and the law, and disdains the explicit, imperative requirements found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Comments that defend Romney on this are shameful, especially since the man just spent an entire election season blatantly and obviously lying to the American people concerning the central moral question of our day. They are a clear signal of the extreme danger to the republic that Mitt Romney represents. Sadly, his supporters are becoming more and more like the man they are following. May God have mercy on us."

     Pro-life voters have accepted candidates who compromise for long enough. It's time we voted for someone who actually shares our beliefs, not someone who occasionally pretends to, and not very well at that, in order to advance his own political ends. There is only one Tier One pro-life leader in the presidential race - Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Abortion "Settled in the Courts"

     According to Mitt Romney, "Democrats try to make this [abortion] a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts, it's been settled for some time in the courts." Romney is an enthusiastic advocate of stasis on abortion. He is not pro-life any more than any other politician who seeks to continue abortion is pro-life.

     Romney, the supposed champion of the pro-life cause in this year's election cycle, is unequivocally pro-abortion in many cases, and in all others simply wishes the issue would go away. He claims to plan to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, however, even after his "conversion" on abortion he appointed almost exclusively pro-abortion judges. Further, since the Supreme Court has failed to overturn even the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, widely recognized as the worst decision from that body, leaving the issue of abortion to the courts is essentially avoiding the issue entirely: Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by the Supreme Court without outside action influencing the court, thus Romney is pro-abortion in every practical sense. Tom Hoefling, on the other hand, has consistently taken a stand for the life of the unborn. The choice could not be clearer.

For a new birth of freedom!

Differences

There are some differences between Obama and Romney, however similar the two may be.

• Obama is pandering to an urban liberal demographic, Romney is pandering to a rural and suburban    conservative demographic.

• Obama is black and rich; Romney is rich and white.

• Obama hasn't given anything but lip service to same-sex "marriage," while Romney helped institute it as governor of Massachusetts.

• Obama can't make conservatives support what they hate, Romney can.

• Obama didn't wage a well-funded and dishonest smear campaign against a number of prominent conservatives, Romney did.

• Obama hasn't corrupted the pro-life label by pretending to be pro-life, Romney has.

• Obama was not able to push through unapologetic funding of abortions in his healthcare plan, Romney was.

• If elected, Obama wouldn't be the head of the Republican Party, Romney would.

• If elected, Obama would face opposition from a Republican Congress, Romney wouldn't.

• If elected, Obama would not be eligible for reelection in 2016, Romney would.

The choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all. When presented with two unacceptable choice, it is important to choose neither. Fortunately, there is an acceptable choice - Tom Hoefling, who has consistently stood for life, liberty, and the principles that made America great.

For a new birth of freedom!

Why no Christian Should Vote for Romney or Obama

     This post will present an argument explaining exactly why no professing Christian, whatever his political affiliation, should vote for either Romney or Obama. This argument is applied specifically to the 2012 presidential election, but in reality it could be generalized to any election. A line of reasoning is presented establishing first that both Romney and Obama would pursue policies which any Christian should consider evil, and second that that fact alone ought to be enough to prevent any Christian from voting for either candidate.

Learn and Study the Facts

     Some will say that Mitt Romney is pro-life.  His own web site says it, but his recent statements affirm that he is for abortion for exceptions including the health of the mother, which has been interpreted to mean anything the mother can say that threatens her health; basically this amounts to abortion on demand, the position Mitt Romney has held for decades.  He shows no understanding or appreciation for the Declaration of Independence self evident truths, including that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life.

     Read more at http://www.americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24396&posts=2

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney and Roe: A Comparison

     Mitt Romney has held many positions on abortion. He was pro-choice in his run for senate in Massachusetts, definitely not pro-choice when he considered a run for governor in Utah, pro-choice again when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and came around to "calling" himself pro-life (his words) while eyeing the Republican presidential nomination. Since his conversion, however, his actions have been far from reassuring. He forced hospitals to provide abortifacients, apparently violating his belief that life begins at conception and should be protected, and oversaw the implementation of a healthcare plan that provided for abortions with co-pays of between $0 and $100. In the Republican primaries he strenuously maintained that he never was pro-choice and announced that his current position was that abortion was wrong except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but that the decision to allow or regulate abortion should be left to the states. He further stated that the only way this could be done would be to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, since the Supreme Court was, in his mind, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality. It should be noted that, since the Supreme Court hasn't even overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford, it is highly unlikely that it would overturn Roe v. Wade at any point in the foreseeable future. Since the only way that decision was changed was to amend the Constitution, and Romney opposes the Human Life Amendment, Romney's public position, for all intents and purposes, is pro-abortion, whatever private qualms he may have had.

A Standard to which the Wise and Honest can Repair

     While other candidates have vacillated, obfuscated, and generally confused the issue of abortion or, worse still, come firmly down on the side of genocide against the unborn, Tom Hoefling has remained firm in his commitment to life. As shown in this page, Hoefling not only talks the talk now, he has walked the walk in the past on abortion.

     Some argue that any vote for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote, however, a true wasted vote is one cast for a candidate who does not represent your beliefs. Pro-lifers are presented with a choice between a bevy of candidates who are, at best, tepidly moderate on abortion, and Hoefling, who has not backed down from taking tough stands on life. If we as pro-life voters waste our votes voting for a candidate whose views are antithetical to our own it will be made all the more egregious by the fact that we ignored a candidate whose views aligned with ours to do so.

     A vote cast in defense of the eternal principles on which America was founded can never be said to be wasted. As George Washington, first president of the United States, put it, "let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."

For a new birth of freedom!

Is Mitt Romney Pro-Life?

Is Mitt Romney pro-life?

Not for any child if a court says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child if a democratic majority says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child if a particular state says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child of rape.

Not for any child of incest.

Not for any child if the mother claims that the pregnancy might cause her a hangnail.

So, no, in no practical sense is Mitt Romney pro-life.

Do not settle for a candidate who personally "pro-life" and practically pro-abortion.

For a new birth freedom!

Romney did it First

     Conservatives have been almost universally outraged over the passage of Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, "Obamacare." However, many of these same conservatives enthusiastically (or not-so-enthusiastically) support Mitt Romney, not realizing or not caring that Romney's signature healthcare legislation "Romneycare," is, according an adviser who held a leading role in designing both programs, the same in every major aspect. Obama did it, but Romney did first.

The Candidates' Positions on Abortion

     Few political issues are more compelling than abortion. Even after multiple foreign wars and an economic collapse abortion holds its place among the most pressing problems of the day, and with good reason. The taking of the life (one can call it nothing else) of the most defenseless in society is a crime not only against that life but against the future and against the ideas of freedom and equality of opportunity that fueled the birth of America. Although the majority of Americans do not support abortion, and more than two-third believe abortion after the unborn child can feel pain (sometime before fourteen weeks according to the latest research) should be illegal, surprisingly few politicians are willing to “speak out for the one who cannot speak, for the rights of those who are doomed.” This year's presidential candidates are, with one notable exception, no different.

     Incumbent president Barack Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion. Not only does he openly support making abortion legal, he even opposed a bill requiring that babies who survive abortions be provided with medical care rather than being left to die. In fact, he promised to make preserving “women's rights” to abortions a priority as president. Although supports abortion, he is in favor of banning late-term abortions, with the usual exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Obama also supports public funding for abortions, although with the exception of the abortifacient drugs covered under the HHS mandate and federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the country), he has not been successful in implementing his desired policy while president. Although some have described him as the “most pro-abortion president,” this is not the case. His positions, however repugnant to those who value the lives of the unborn, is hardly exceptional among Democrats. Arguably Clinton's positions were significantly more pro-abortion—after all, Clinton vetoed a bill banning partial birth abortions while Obama, at least in theory, would have supported it. He has been one of the more pro-abortion presidents in history, but not the worst.

Americans Strongly Against Late Abortions

     Recent polling by The Polling Company show that Americans are strongly opposed to abortions after the unborn child can feel pain. In fact, with 63% of respondents favoring a law making abortions after the child can feel pain illegal and only 21% opposing such a law, three times more Americans oppose abortions in cases after the child can feel pain than support them.

Personhood Initiative Supports Tom Hoefling

     The Personhood Initiative, an Alabama pro-life group, supports Tom Hoefling for president. This highlights his commitment to the sanctity of life, born or unborn, and other candidates lack of such commitment. This time we must not allow fear of losing to hinder our fight for the lives of the most defenseless among us. It is vital that those who value life do not allow themselves to once again be fooled into supporting a candidate who does not, or at least holds life in less esteem than his career.

     To read more about The Personhood Initiative, go to this link--and while you're at it, check out the petition to get Tom Hoefling on the ballot in Alabama.

For a new birth of freedom!

Multiple Choice

     Mitt Romney's problem isn't just that he supported abortion in the past--people can change--it's that he refused to admit that he did, even when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that he was personally adamantly pro-abortion. One may change one's mind, but doing so requires admitting that one's mind was different in the past. 

     The fact that Romney will not casts doubt on the sincerity and veracity of his entire conversion to life--it was, as someone once put it, more on the road to Washington than the road to Damascus. Romney's deceit on the issue is partially documented in this CBS News article. Can a man who can't even be trusted to admit that he really changed his mind be trusted with the leadership of the greatest nation on earth? I think not. Let's reject the self-serving establishment of both parties who would attempt to foist a candidate this unprincipled and this deceitful on us and vote for someone truly pro-life.

For a new birth of freedom!

Mitt Romney's Convoluted Record on Abortion

     Mitt Romney would like conservatives to believe he is pro-life, but his record tells a different story. This link provides an excellent overview of his record. How can we expect him to change everything he has been once he becomes president? Instead, let's vote for a consistently conservative pro-life candidate--Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!