(TZ here – this is not to endorse any candidate, but to make an observation. I should also say I’m a pacifist mainly because of the issue, so my use of irony below might be taken the wrong way so let me make it clear that I do not believe in the use of violence except under the law following proper legal procedures, and in the just war teachings of the church)

Ron Paul is also against assassinating doctors (or whomever) who perform abortions.

You are probably saying to yourself, “Well, Duh!”. So are the other candidates…

I don’t think the other candidates are.

What if one of the hundreds of “number 2 in Al Queda” insurgents happens to be an abortionist, and runs into an abortion clinic somewhere on that other side of the world where we are sending predator drones with hellfire missiles.

Whether or not he has killed tens of thousands of innocent babies in their mother’s wombs might be irrelevant to whether he is a terrorist, but what would the other candidates do? Probably blow up the building and/or assassinate the guy. Even if he was an American citizen on US soil.

Of course a million innocents perish in our homegrown Abortion Holocaust each year, but war is hard and creates hard choices, like not to bomb the rails to Auschwitz because there were other, more important targets. Maybe back then we thought “The Final Solution” was an internal German political matter and they had courts who could rule and MPs and the rest of the political and judicial system and maybe just needed time to come around and realize the mistake. But sending the Luftwaffe, Buzz Bombs and V2s to crater London was serious! Serious enough to firebomb Dresden which some peaceniks disagreed was necessary.

Iranian scientists who have not yet shed any blood either on a battlefield or innocent can be assassinated. Muslim preachers who merely speak from a pulpit and not on the battlefield and their children can be assassinated. Large buildings with many people including innocent women and children can be blown up on suspicion – and another missile to blow up the firemen and paramedics trying to rescue the wounded. That is what the rest of the field call for and will do.

The others claim the power to do such things, to assassinate anyone – even American citizens – without review by signing a death warrant, to torture, to violate international law and treaties, to shred the constitution, trash the rule of law, immunity from any recourse. If you read carefully the “unitary executive” presidential power they claim to have like Bush then Obama has, it is more than sufficient to end abortion within a few days of taking office. Yet they are very clear they won’t use their power for that purpose, though I’m curious as to their reasoning.

There is no comparison between a thousand deaths from terrorism and a million from abortion.

Any president has the constitutional power to pardon any person who took it upon themselves to assassinate someone who even are a threat to innocent life, e.g. Scott Roeder. I don’t think Ron Paul, who would pardon large numbers of nonviolent offenders, would.

Someone should ask the candidates in the upcoming debates or on the campaign trail about this.

The video like the post is intended to be ironic or satire.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 9:41 pm and is filed under Visiting posters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.