MEET THE CANDIDATES

Pastor Butch Paugh, the Constitution Party Candidate for Governor in West Virginia.

Pro-Life (His name is legally Pro-Life, having changed it from from Marvin Richardson to Pro-Life to demonstrate his commitment to abolishing legalized abortion.  Lest you think he's not willing to consider the sensibilities of others, he almost changed his name to No-More-Dead-Babies).

The Independent Candidate for Governor in Idaho.

Neal Horsley

The Creator's Rights Party Candidate for Governor in Georgia.

WHY THESE MEN ARE WALKING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

In order to understand our present political context, it is necessary to see that we live in a time almost exactly like the time before the American Civil War, a time when a Supreme Court decision had made Civil War almost a foregone conclusion.  To see the times as mirror images of each other, we need to compare the Supreme Court's pre-Civil War Dred Scott decision with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

There is no one better to define such a comparison that Louise Weinberg, who occupies the William B. Bates Chair for the Administration of Justice at the University of Texas.  She has made her career by focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in history and the American people.  Listen to her explain the context, "The Civil War was the greatest calamity that ever befell this country. To be sure, slavery was abolished, the treasure of the Civil War Amendments was bequeathed to us, and the Union was preserved. Those are grand things. But the sacrifice of American youth—free and slave, white and black, North and South—was almost beyond bearing, with 620,000 dead, countless others maimed in body and spirit, and whole regions of the country laid waste. Dred Scott destroyed whatever peaceful or temporizing options we had, leaving civil war as virtually the only route to resolution of the country’s deepest conflict. History has not forgiven the Taney [Supreme] Court for Dred Scott, and it never should."

Ms. Weinberg continued, "Realistically, war became inevitable, or nearly so, only with Dred Scott. Although it is often carelessly said that Dred Scott caused the Civil War, the actual connections between Dred Scott and the probability of the War have not always been clearly explained. These connections can be seen by considering them as disempowering government. First, by pitching Dred Scott on the Constitution, and holding that the Constitution forbade legislative restrictions on slave property, the Taney Court all but destroyed the option of any legislative compromise of the conflict. Second, the Court simultaneously all but destroyed the chance of a meaningful judicial approach to the problem, short of a direct overruling of the case by the Supreme Court. Thus, in 1857 Dred Scott substantially blocked any effectual peaceful exit from the impasse. What was left but selfhelp, violence, terrorism, war? A final redundant boulder rolled into place in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln. With Lincoln at the head of the executive branch there could be no hope of any compromise, constitutional or not, that the President would sign. Lincoln would never compromise his position against the expansion of slavery. That was the core principle of the Republican Party, the rock on which it was founded, the resolution enshrined in the platform on which he had run, the principle he had come out of political retirement to fight for and had never stopped fighting for. He could not break faith on this most fundamental point—with his Party, with the people, or with himself."

To show the decisive role that the Dred Scott decision played in structuring the American Civil War, listen to Ms. Weinberg tells us about what Abraham Lincoln did as his first act as President of the USA.

"In his First Inaugural Address, while counseling a fitting respect for the Court, Lincoln insisted that Dred Scott was only an ordinary litigation between private parties, and as such should not be allowed to set national policy...In this way Lincoln asserted a most controversial conclusion. He was finding a power and duty, reposing not only in the executive and legislative branches, but even in courts below, to disregard a Supreme Court opinion. It is due our reverence for Lincoln to doubt that he would have spun such a piece of whole cloth, subversive of the rule of law, had he been talking about any other case, but this, the Supreme Court’s worst,"  Ms. Weinberg concluded.

WHY DRED SCOTT AND ROE V. WADE WERE BOTH FORERUNNERS OF REVOLUTION

So little has been written comparing the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision to Roe v. Wade that many people are shocked to see the comparison drawn.

The comparisons are obvious if we take the time to look.  1.  Both decisions involved the formal definition of person under the US Constitution, or to be more precise, involved the definition of nonperson; 2. both decisions created precedents that a significant minority of people found so intolerable as to move them toward Civil War.

These results occurred because decisions defining personhood are the most profoundly sacred, the most profoundly theological, decisions imaginable among human beings.  It is simply impossible for a government on earth to make a mistake about who the Living God defines as a person created in His image without unleashing the most dangerous forces on earth.

We can see that both Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade are such profound theological decisions. 

Dred Scott committed the federal government of the United States to the idea that black African slaves were not people in the same sense as white Americans.  Dred Scott constitutionalized the sanctity of slave property.  In other words, Dred Scott made holding slave property a sacred right. The Dred Scott decision did not simply discourage any act of Congress that restricted slavery, Dred Scott made such legislative acts illegal, not just in the organized territories of the United States, but in every state in the Union, North and South. 

Think about it and you will see that Roe v. Wade has been proven to accomplish exactly what Dred Scott accomplished.  Roe v. Wade defined the thing in the belly of a woman, the thing known throughout history to be an unborn baby, to be no person at all.  And furthermore, Roe v. Wade forbade any other government power to act as if the unborn baby was a person.  No legislature, whether federal or State, can write any law pertaining to abortion without fashioning that law so that the Supreme Court will approve it based on the standards defined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.  As Dred Scott constitutionalized the sanctity of slave property, so too has Roe v. Wade constitutionalized the sanctity of abortion.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN COULD NOT TOLERATE LEGALIZED SLAVERY

In his First Inaugural Address cited above, Abraham Lincoln defined what happened in a nation that allowed the Supreme Court to dictate the profound and sacred theological questions for a people, "...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal," Lincoln stated.

History shows us that Abraham Lincoln refused to "resign" the government of the United States into the hands of the Supreme Court when that Court, as in the Dred Scott decision, refused all men the Rights endowed to them by their Creator.

Just as men and women like Abraham Lincoln could not long tolerate legalized slavery, even less are there men and women today who can long tolerate legalized child sacrifice.  The men running for Governor want to represent people like that.

Just as Dred Scott proved itself to be a forerunner of the revolution contained in the American Civil War, so, too, unless the American people are wiser than before, Roe v. Wade will be the forerunner of another revolution in this land.

TODAY IT IS EASY TO SCOFF

It is easy to scoff at the idea that people are organizing themselves to disregard a Supreme Court decision even if it means this land must once again enter Civil War.  But it is not as easy to scoff this year as it was the last.

THE HANDWRITING IS ON THE WALL FOR THOSE WITH EYES THAT SEE

For the first time we see in this election season three candidates who are doing everything in their power to find people in their respective States who will elect them to the office of Governor for the precise purpose of nullifying Roe v. Wade in exactly the same way Dred Scott was nullified in the past. Just like Abraham Lincoln was a forerunner of change, these candidates are the forerunners of a strategy that has the power to force the end of legalized abortion or of the United States of America itself.

Scoffers will find it increasingly difficult to scoff as more and more people of good will realize no price is too great to pay to deliver this land from the cries of the babies being legally butchered upon command of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

If you are not willing to continue to support legalized child sacrifice in the United States of America, it is time for you to realize that everything that could be done to reverse Roe. v. Wade has been tried and failed.

People who keep doing the same thing over and over and yet expect different results either are very stupid or actually do not want different results.

After a long train of abuses and usurpations, the founders of the government of the United States of America declared it was the right, the duty, of the true citizens of this nation to rise up and overthrow pernicious evil rather than allow absolute despotism to rule this land.  You will either prove you are a true citizen of the true United States of America like Abraham Lincoln, or you will prove yourself to be a bastard outlaw who has disowned the founder fathers and mothers of this nation.