Audio from Dr. James Dobson

[Bob Enyart]

Answering drbrumley: Murder, is it a federal, or state crime?

Answering drbrumley: Murder, is it a federal, or state crime?

drdrumley asked Turbo: is the crime of murder a federal or state crime? We all know what God says about it and we know how right He is, that it is a crime against humanity and Himself but in this discussion, who has the authority to carry out the sentence? Is it the states or the feds? Thats what this discussion is about.

Turbo, if you don't mind, I'd like to answer drumley also: Murder is a crime that a government can allow a subdivision of government to prosecute. But no government has the authority to tolerate the decriminalization of murder, regardless of what theory of government is spouted toward that end. Do not let your incidental theory of government (one that doesn't apply, for example, in another nation or another century) to undermine God's enduring command, Do not murder. If your constitutionalism will tolerate the systematic slaughter of innocent children (as Ron Paul explicitly says he does), then you promote lawlessness in the name of constitutionalism, for no true law exists where the foundation of all earthly law, Do not murder, is not maintained.


And to Troy, drdrumley, Ron Paul supporters et. al., Ron Paul by his immoral Libertarian Party principles and legislation, would not use federal authority to stop a single unborn child from being murdered, for he explicitly states that he would allow states like California and New York to systematically murder children without interference from him or the federal government.

So I repeat: Ron Paul is a true Libertarian, and his America could be crawling with sodomite child-killers, and he would say that the federal government should simply look the other way. That is not principled leadership, but immorality based upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy.

Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it's 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (like heroin, crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.

And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

 

[elected4ever]

drdrumley asked Turbo: is the crime of murder a federal or state crime? We all know what God says about it and we know how right He is, that it is a crime against humanity and Himself but in this discussion, who has the authority to carry out the sentence? Is it the states or the feds? Thats what this discussion is about.

Turbo, if you don't mind, I'd like to answer drumley also: Murder is a crime that a government can allow a subdivision of government to prosecute. But no government has the authority to tolerate the decriminalization of murder, regardless of what theory of government is spouted toward that end. Do not let your incidental theory of government (one that doesn't apply, for example, in another nation or another century) to undermine God's enduring command, Do not murder. If your constitutionalism will tolerate the systematic slaughter of innocent children (as Ron Paul explicitly says he does), then you promote lawlessness in the name of constitutionalism, for no true law exists where the foundation of all earthly law, Do not murder, is not maintained.


And to Troy, drdrumley, Ron Paul supporters et. al., Ron Paul by his immoral Libertarian Party principles and legislation, would not use federal authority to stop a single unborn child from being murdered, for he explicitly states that he would allow states like California and New York to systematically murder children without interference from him or the federal government.

So I repeat: Ron Paul is a true Libertarian, and his America could be crawling with sodomite child-killers, and he would say that the federal government should simply look the other way. That is not principled leadership, but immorality based upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy.

Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it's 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (like heroin, crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.

And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

From what I have read of Ron Paul and watched and listened to many of his videos, then listen to what Mr. Enyart has to say then I can come to only one conclusion. That being that Mr. Enyart brings false witness against Ron Paul.

I sincerely believe that Mr. Enyart is more interested in protecting his individual power base than acting in a positive manner to outlaw abortion. This issue brings in a lot of money to his ministry and I believe that a real justifiable plan of attacking abortion as Ron Paul has is a treat to that cash flow. I am beginning to believe that Mr Enyart would be just fine if no solution is found and he can continue to rail against abortion.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hey elected4ever: you accuse me of what Ron Paul admits

Hey elected4ever: you accuse me of what Ron Paul admits

Hey elected4ever, in your defense of Ron Paul, you accuse me of what he admits:

e4e: "I am beginning to believe that Mr Enyart would be just fine if no solution is found..."

Ron Paul on YouTube about abortion: "I am quite sure it will not be solved..."

I on the other hand, like an abolitionist, am working to end legalized abortion.

Dear e, when I accuse someone, I don't simply emote; I give evidence of my accusation. Here is your accusation against me, and then I'll list the evidence you provided:

e4e: ...I can only come to one conclusion... Mr. Enyart brings false witness against Ron Paul.

e4e's evidence: [none provided]

Take a zero, and erase it, and that's how much evidence e4e offered for his accusation that I violated one of the Ten Commandments. Being emotional and judging someone's motives does not suffice for evidence.

e4e: "I sincerely believe that Mr. Enyart is more interested in protecting his individual power base than acting in a positive manner to outlaw abortion. This issue brings in a lot of money to his ministry."

Of course you have every right to imagine how much money I make, how much we spend and take in from pro-life work, and whether our pro-life work pays me a salary or generates a positive or negative cash flow. But are you justified using those guesses as evidence to judge motives and make accusations?

 

[drbrumley]

drdrumley asked Turbo: is the crime of murder a federal or state crime? We all know what God says about it and we know how right He is, that it is a crime against humanity and Himself but in this discussion, who has the authority to carry out the sentence? Is it the states or the feds? Thats what this discussion is about.

Turbo, if you don't mind, I'd like to answer drumley also:

:up:

Murder is a crime that a government can allow a subdivision of government to prosecute.

Thats' exactly right. But here is the kicker Bob, the States don't give up their authority. And since the States don't let the local governments to legalize murder, do you really have a case to be made in this regard?

But no government has the authority to tolerate the decriminalization of murder, regardless of what theory of government is spouted toward that end.

That's right.

Do not let your incidental theory of government (one that doesn't apply, for example, in another nation or another century) to undermine God's enduring command, Do not murder.

I don't

If your constitutionalism will tolerate the systematic slaughter of innocent children (as Ron Paul explicitly says he does), then you promote lawlessness in the name of constitutionalism, for no true law exists where the foundation of all earthly law, Do not murder, is not maintained.

My Constitutionalism does not tolerate the systematic slaughter of innocent children (as Ron Paul has not said)

p.s. I hope you read my signature

 

[PKevman]

I am beginning to believe that Mr Enyart would be just fine if no solution is found and he can continue to rail against abortion.

I rebuke you sternly for this E4E. You have no right to make an accusation like this against a brother in Christ who has always stood for the rights of the unborn. What a horrible thing to say! :nono:

 

[elected4ever]

I rebuke you sternly for this E4E. You have no right to make an accusation like this against a brother in Christ who has always stood for the rights of the unborn. What a horrible thing to say! :nono:

I would hope that my concerns are invalid but I see no evidence to the contrary at this point.

 

[drbrumley]

I would hope that my concerns are invalid but I see no evidence to the contrary at this point.

I believe your concerns to be invalid. What I see as the problem is Bob is thinking the Federal Government is boss, and that isn't so.

 

[elected4ever]

Hey elected4ever, in your defense of Ron Paul, you accuse me of what he admits:

e4e: "I am beginning to believe that Mr Enyart would be just fine if no solution is found..."

Ron Paul on YouTube about abortion: "I am quite sure it will not be solved..."

I on the other hand, like an abolitionist, am working to end legalized abortion.

Dear e, when I accuse someone, I don't simply emote; I give evidence of my accusation. Here is your accusation against me, and then I'll list the evidence you provided:

e4e: ...I can only come to one conclusion... Mr. Enyart brings false witness against Ron Paul.

e4e's evidence: [none provided]

Take a zero, and erase it, and that's how much evidence e4e offered for his accusation that I violated one of the Ten Commandments. Being emotional and judging someone's motives does not suffice for evidence.

e4e: "I sincerely believe that Mr. Enyart is more interested in protecting his individual power base than acting in a positive manner to outlaw abortion. This issue brings in a lot of money to his ministry."

Of course you have every right to imagine how much money I make, how much we spend and take in from pro-life work, and whether our pro-life work pays me a salary or generates a positive or negative cash flow. But are you justified using those guesses as evidence to judge motives and make accusations?

Frankly I do not care how much you make or how you spend it as lone as you receive it legally. You have no call to ascribe to Ron Paul the actions of others. As far as evidence is concerned, there has been numerous posting on this board to properly characterize Ron Paul. It seems to me that you have made no effort at all do do anything other that to look for flaws. You are therefore a fault finder even if the fault lies with the policy of others that Ron Paul addresses in public documents that you are, by appearances at least, unwilling to consider.

When you say that Ron Paul is a pro abort or words to that effect it is clear that you have no idea of the truth and are not in the least bit interested. If you are looking for the perfect candidate then I must inform you that Jesus has not returned yet. It is up to us to do the best we can with what we have to work with.

If you are not a Ron Paul supporter then that is fine and dandy but don't make false and misleading accusations. When you do that it causes me to wonder about your motivation for doing so.

 

[kmoney]

Because people who recognize that the unborn are people and that abortion is murder should also recognize that no level of government has the authority to legalize it.

Do you think states should get to decide whether abortion is legal?

Either way. My point is that I don't think saying it should be a state issue is the same as being pro-choice. It doesn't follow.

If someone said that slavery should be a state issue, would you see that person as not being anti-slavery?

I don't think so. Would you?

 

[drbrumley]

Either way. My point is that I don't think saying it should be a state issue is the same as being pro-choice. It doesn't follow.


I don't think so. Would you?

:think: Wonders if Turbo actually knows the civil war was not about slavery?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Pro-choice State by State

Pro-choice State by State

drbrumley wrote: "the States don't let the local governments to legalize murder"

I don't know why he wrote that. States have passed "laws" giving the "right" to abortion (as have scores of countries), and other of our States stand ready to do so if Roe is overturned.

And of course, e4e did not provide evidence for his accusation, nor withdraw it.

And let me re-assert, when Libertarians including Ron Paul assert that the states have the right to decide whether to permit or prohibit child-killing, they are NOT pro-life, they are pro-choice, state by state.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

 

[drbrumley]

drbrumley wrote: "the States don't let the local governments to legalize murder"

I don't know why he wrote that. States have passed "laws" giving the "right" to abortion (as have scores of countries), and other of our States stand ready to do so if Roe is overturned.

Can you cite me some examples please! Before Roe. Since the feds usurped the states. Or, maybe you can cite some examples of states legalizing even murder to the local townships prior to the Civil war?

Much appreciated sir!

 

[drbrumley]

drbrumley wrote: "the States don't let the local governments to legalize murder"

I don't know why he wrote that.

Of course you don't know why I wrote that. It is totally beyond you that the Federal Government created by the Constitution was not this all powerful government you make it out to be. You seem to think that the Constitution granted all these powers to the Federal Government. No, it limited them as it should have. Now the states voted upon the Constitution, which protected individual liberties. And I know you agree, cause I heard you state this, is that the Constitution put down onto paper what God ordained; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to each man and thier prosperity. As I am also sure you will agree, committing murder is not a liberty. Face it Bob, you get angry at the Federal Governmet for doing what they did. And I agree. But then you want to use the same misguided principles the pro aborts use to get their way.

 

[elected4ever]

And of course, e4e did not provide evidence for his accusation, nor withdraw it.

Evidence has already been provided on this board. just because you are to lazy to read it is not my fault and I will not wast volumus web-space or my time on the project. Secondly as for as my misgivings about you. That are as true and founded as your accusations concerning Ron Paul.

You are getting like those talking heads on TV. You say what you wont regardless of what the truth is.. Show me where Ron Paul is the pro abort that you claim he is otherwise retract your accusation.

 

[Bob Enyart]

brumley & eVIe

brumley & eVIe

brumley: "Can you cite me some examples [of states legalizing child killing] please! Before Roe."

Again, I don't understand the things you write. Why would you ask this? Do you really not know, or are you just being argumentative? In 1967, Colorado and California passed permissive abortion laws, and others quickly followed, with the kind of laws that say, if the child's father is a criminal, you can kill him, if the child is handicapped, you can kill him. Etc. There were many children being killed by the States years before Roe. And since Roe, there are scores of laws that keep abortion legal, regardless of whether Roe is overturned. I just Googled Notre Dame's constitutional law professor Dr. Charles Rice and Indiana consent, and found this:

"Dr. Rice, who teaches constitutional law, and morality and law, acknowledged that many laws across America, including Indiana's Informed Consent law, would keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade simply fell. Indiana Code, Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... states: '1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when... the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician.'"​

The Constitution, for all its failures, secure the right to life from which no one can be deprived without due process (5th and 14th amendments). So, the constitution does not permit any state to allow the intenional killing of an innocent person not convicted of a capital crime. Yet many Libertarians and constitutionalists like Ron Paul use the Constitution as a cloak to camoflauge their tolerance of child-killing. Paul should explain how it is that the Constitution secures the right to life, and yet, constitutionalists like him say that the states have the right to authorize killing innocent children.

brumley: To justify your incidental view of government, you argue that Roe did it. But the states were killing kids six years before Roe. And almost the entire northern hemisphere has legalized abortion on demand, and for all other States, Roe didn't compel those dozens of nations. This trend was not started by Roe, and 44 millions kids aborted per years surgically are murdered apart from the authority of Roe. Our American States are not guiltless, nor especially righteous, and even if they were, that would not in the slightest change the principles of governance by which God will judge our federal officials, one of which is that they must not tolerate the shedding of innocent blood anywhere within their terriroty.

eIVe: I don't think you have the courage to answer this question: Would Ron Paul as president force the state of California to outlaw child killing?

If you answer...
No: he is pro-choice state by state.
Yes: you haven't read his two 2007 H.R. bills or his YouTube interview (and others) on the subject that I have copied to TOL (above, and in the link repeatedly posted by others to another TOL thread).

eIVe: Why would you want to obfuscate that someone who wants to be president is pro-choice state by state?

eIVe: If interpretations of these two conflict, what takes precedence: our Constitution or God's command, Do not murder?

-Bob Enyart

 

[drbrumley]

brumley: "Can you cite me some examples [of states legalizing child killing] please! Before Roe."

Again, I don't understand the things you write. Why would you ask this? Do you really not know, or are you just being argumentative? In 1967, Colorado and California passed permissive abortion laws, and others quickly followed, with the kind of laws that say, if the child's father is a criminal, you can kill him, if the child is handicapped, you can kill him. Etc. There were many children being killed by the States years before Roe. And since Roe, there are scores of laws that keep abortion legal, regardless of whether Roe is overturned. I just Googled Notre Dame's constitutional law professor Dr. Charles Rice and Indiana consent, and found this:

"Dr. Rice, who teaches constitutional law, and morality and law, acknowledged that many laws across America, including Indiana's Informed Consent law, would keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade simply fell. Indiana Code, Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... states: '1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when... the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician.'"​

The Constitution, for all its failures, secure the rights to life from which no one can be deprived without due process (5th and 14th amendments). So, the constitution does not permit any state to allow the intenional killing of an innocent person not convicted of a capital crime. Yet many Libertarians and constitutionalists like Ron Paul use the Constitution as a cloak to camoflauge their tolerance of child-killing. Paul should explain how it is that the Constitution secures the right to life, and yet, constitutionalists like him say that the states have the right to authorize killing innocent children.

Thank you Bob, I will look into this further.

 

[drbrumley]

Ok after further thought, Bob, are you suggesting Ron Paul is not for due process?

I can almost guarantee that he is. Which is why no state will be able to legally make laws to perform abortions. Is this your driving issue with him, cause you haven't heard that he requires due process? Seriously.

As for your examples of Colorado and California, again what the states did was UNCONSTITIONAL! Yes, that is the reason it went before the Supreme Court. But to get it before the court, the Constitution had to be violated. True or no?

 

[drbrumley]

Well, coming from a Notre Dame professer doesn't make it so. Cause is he overlooking due process as well? It seems to me he is. Food for thought Bob. See if I can find due process here:

Indiana Code, Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... states: '1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when... the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician.'"

:think: Can't find due process. So what we have here is an unconstitional state law.

Oooops!

 

[drbrumley]

The Constitution, for all its failures, secure the right to life from which no one can be deprived without due process (5th and 14th amendments).

:up:

So, the constitution does not permit any state to allow the intenional killing of an innocent person not convicted of a capital crime. )

:up:

Yet many Libertarians and constitutionalists like Ron Paul use the Constitution as a cloak to camoflauge their tolerance of child-killing. )

This is where you go overboard!

Paul should explain how it is that the Constitution secures the right to life, and yet, constitutionalists like him say that the states have the right to authorize killing innocent children.)

But he hasn't said that Bob. Actually he says quite the opposite.

From Ron Paul himself:

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.​

He answers it quite plainly.

 

[drbrumley]

You know Bob, I think this the most responded to show thread ever.