"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." -- President George Washington, Farewell Address
"No man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another. Those who hold government jobs for a long time are apt to acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon the public interests, and of tolerating conduct from which an unpracticed man would revolt."
-– Andrew Jackson
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
Tom Hoefling I wrote the following
in response to an Orange County Register piece that was posted at FreeRepublic.com
, and it bears repeating here:
Not a single sitting justice of the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Not even one of the majority of the justices who were picked by Republican presidents, members of a party whose platform HAS recognized the personhood of the chld and their protection by our Constitution for the last 28 years.
So, what do you think are the chances that a "president Romney" (it makes me sick just typing that) would pick a judge who is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia?
I say the chances of that are for all intents and purposes ZERO.
Especially since Mitt Romney himself is a pro-choice democrat. He thinks God-given rights can be decided by a majority vote.
He thinks courts make our laws, and that only they get to decide what is constitutional. In other words, he supports the abortion on demand status quo, the destruction of the checks and balances that make our form of government possible, and the erasure of the legitimate lines of authority granted to the various branches and departments of our government.
He thinks states can alienate unalienable rights if they want. A Stephen A. Douglas Democrat position if there ever was one.
In other words, even in this shape-shifter’s current incarnation, his views are anti-republican.
No matter how you cut it, Obama or Romney, all the babies continue to die, and so does the republic whose founding premise was the equal protection of the rights of all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.
The Daily Caller
Jimmy Carter says he would be “comfortable” with a Mitt Romney presidency, although he still expects [Alleged] President Barack Obama to win re-election in the fall.
“I’d rather have a Democrat but I would be comfortable,” the former president told MSNBC in a segment aired Wednesday. “I think Romney has shown in the past, in his previous years as a moderate or progressive
… that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics as you know.”Read more...
"Exceptions to the equal protection of all persons opened the door to abortion on demand, and the subsequent brutal killing in this country of more than fifty million of our fellow human beings. And it is exceptions that keep that doorway to hell wide open."
-- Tom Hoefling, April 25, 2012 2012 Presidential nominee, America's Party Equal Protection for Posterity
-----skepticism.org This Day In History - April 25, 1967 [Republican] Governor John A. Love of Colorado signs the first liberalized abortion law (based upon a model created by the American Law Institute) in the United States, allowing abortion in cases of permanent mental or physical disability of either the child or mother or in cases of rape or incest.
This amended Colorado law on abortion has been on the books for over 100 years. Similar laws will soon be passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina.
According to Governor Love,
"The new law does several things. First it extends beyond the possible death of the woman or her serious physical injury to include mental impairment of a serious and permanent nature when verified by a psychiatrist. It also extends to cases in which it is likely that the child would have a grave and permanent physical deformity or mental retardation. Finally it extends to certain cases of rape and incest. ...
The bill itself is completely permissive, not requiring any hospital, doctor, nurse, potential mother or any other person to act in any way to terminate a pregnancy at any time."Early in the legislative session, Governor Love reportedly said that easing abortion restrictions "sounds like something I can support." Now, however, he says:
"The action of the Legislature in passing a bill which seeks to amend Colorado law in regard to the legal termination of certain pregnancies has presented to me one of the more important and difficult decisions of my experience in office." Leonard Carlin, president of the Catholic Lawyers Guild of Denver, says
"My impression was that he was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the bill."
Provided courtesy of DefendtheNaturalFamily.com americanvisionnews.com
MetroWeekly.com is exposing
the whole truth that Washington Post would not reveal:
Mitt Romney’s campaign tonight announced that it has hired Richard Grenell, an out gay former George W. Bush administration official, to serve as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s “national security and foreign policy spokesman,” according to a report
from The Washington Post
that did not mention Grenell’s sexual orientation.
Grenell served through September 2008 in the Bush administration as a spokesman to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — and told The Advocate
‘s Kerry Eleveld as he left the administration that it was his hope that New York would have marriage equality soon and that he would one day be able to marry his partner, Matt Lashey. The couple has been together 10 years. . . .
Andrew Sullivan, who had endorsed Obama’s 2008 run, wrote
of the news, “For Romney to have an openly gay spokesman is a real outreach to gay Republicans, a subtle signal to moderates, and the Santorum faction’s reaction will be worth noting.”
Grenell is not just gay, but a gay activist who pushes for same-sex marriages.
At the end of Grenell’s service in the Bush administration, he took a notable whack at the administration, telling The Advocate
‘s Kerry Eleveld of his effort to have his partner, Matt Lashey, listed in the United Nations’ Blue Book, which is “a reference guide of contact information for different member states of the United Nations as well as diplomatic personnel and their spouses.”
Grenell had attempted to have Lashey’s name added several times, to no avail. He told The Advocate
back in 2008, “What put me over the edge was a friend and colleague who met her spouse after I was already with my partner — they got married and subsequently were put into the Blue Book in a matter of days.”
The State Department eventually told him that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented the listing. Although he protested the decision behind the scenes, Lashey’s name was not ever added, which led to his coming forward to criticize the treatement publicly as he left his post.
HuffPost has noted
that since the choice, Grenell has scrubbed his Twitter account and website of offensive material...Read this story at americanvisionnews.com ...
Provided courtesy of the Peace Through Strength Institute Big Peace
Today, the National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, “The war on terror is over.”
“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”
The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.
This, of course, is utter foolishness. Islamism is a religious ideological movement that brooks no real alternatives – so while the State Department proclaims “a legitimate Islamism,” it fails to acknowledge that Islamism, “legitimate” or not, is deeply intolerant of any other modes of expression. Not only that, but Islamism works hand-in-glove with terror groups around the world. Simply because a regime does not openly house al Qaida does not mean that the regime doesn’t support al Qaida; just because a regime pretends at democracy doesn’t mean that it has real democratic values.
Obama has created the brave new Middle East – a Middle East that assumes that every human heart has the desire to vote, but not to be truly free; a Middle East that oppresses women and gays and minorities, but pretends at liberalism; a Middle East that despises America but hides that hate behind a façade of multiculturalism, even as it disposes of its internal dissenters. Read this story at breitbart.com ...
"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31, 1788
"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for the second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816