CRAIGforCONGRESS
Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives

  
 
 

 

Congressional Issues 2010
GOVERNMENT
Abortion and Federalism

Bob Enyart Slanders Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

[Who is Bob Enyart - Wikipedia]

 Response by Kevin Craig

Enyart's post is an embarrassing post. It's hard to figure out if Enyart misrepresents the Constitution more, or Ron Paul more. Ron Paul is pro-life and pro-Constitution. If they were here today, America's Founding Fathers would overwhelmingly vote for Ron Paul.
Discuss this issue on my blog: here, here, or here.
Ron Paul: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06

Bob Enyart counter-responds below
Paul's Christian supporters are in denial. First, they deny that Paul is against a federal ban on abortion, Any action by the federal government, either for or against abortion, is unconstitutional. It's hard for me to imagine that there is a Ron Paul supporter who also supports a federal ban on abortion or accuses Ron Paul of promoting federal action on the issue of abortion. Ron Paul is "the champion of the Constitution," and federal action on this issue of abortion (as in Roe v. Wade) is unconstitutional. Why would Ron Paul support Roe v. Wade or similar action by either of the other branches of the federal government?
even though he attempts to codify that position in his misnamed "Sanctity of Life" bills. Why is the "Sanctity of Life" bill "misnamed?" The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life.
And once they concede his godless position of allowing the states to systematically murder the innocent, Why does Enyart call the situation that existed prior to Roe v. Wade "godless?" What makes Roe's  transfer of authority from the states to the federal judiciary so Godly? Apparently, from 1789 to 1973 the Constitution was guilty of "allowing the states to systematically murder the innocent."

Ron Paul's bill says:

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

The "legislative intent" of this bill is obvious, even, I suspect, to Bob Enyart.
then they fall prey to Paul's invalid and contradictory states' rights rhetoric against the unborn. What rhetoric of Ron Paul is "against the unborn?" This is pure slander, a violation of the Ninth Commandment, and Enyart should repent of it.
Paul rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn. Again, pure slander, a violation of the Ninth Commandment.
He rejects the personhood of the tiniest humans. A really evil thing to say (I say "evil" because I can't believe Bob Enyart is uninformed).

For those who are uninformed, read the bill he consistently proposes. The purpose is:

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Section 2 says:

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
  (1) the Congress declares that--
    (A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
    (B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
  (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

As I pointed out here, Ron Paul consistently sponsors legislation affirming that the unborn have the full right to life from the moment of conception,

His "Issues" page on his website says this:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.

Listen to the video of Ron Paul here.

Here is Ron Paul's statement on that webpage:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Ron Paul is a great candidate that any Christian could support in good conscience. He deserves support and Christians should be encouraged to support him. Talk show hosts should encourage Christians to get the facts about Ron Paul and seriously pray about voting for him and contributing to his campaign.

Ron Paul persuades people to become pro-life.

To describe Ron Paul's statements as "rhetoric against the unborn," and to say Ron Paul "rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn" is truly pathological. There is something deep-down wrong with a man who professes to be a Christian who represents another person's views so falsely. This is pure demagoguery. It is evil.
He betrays his supposed commitment to the Constitution by refusing to uphold its commitment to our posterity, What exactly does Ron Paul "refuse" to uphold in the Constitution? Which affirmative duty enumerated in the Constitution does Ron Paul "refuse" to discharge? More slander.
and its demand that no innocent person shall be deprived of life without due process. Actually, the Constitution demands that no GUILTY person be deprived of life without due process. As I explained here, the "due process" clause protects ABORTIONISTS more than babies. Enyart doesn't understand the Constitution.
(And supposedly, Paul believes the unborn are people who have the right to life.) "Supposedly?" More slander. In addition to the right to life, I have the right to liberty and to property. If Ron Paul votes against a federal law prohibiting theft, does that mean he is denying the right to property? No, it means he's keeping his oath to "support the Constitution." The federal government has no authority under the constitution to make abortion, theft, or kidnapping a crime.
Ask a mayoral or gubernatorial candidate about abortion, and they say, "that's a federal issue." Ask most Republican candidates about abortion, and they say, "that's a state issue." Both sides are punting; like cowards, punting the most critical and controversial issue that stands today before government. No other right can be exercised if the right to life is denied. The abortion issue, though controversial, does not stand before the federal government. It is not a federal issue. (Only in the unconstitutional sense in which Roe v. Wade asserts that it IS a constitutional issue can it be considered so.)

Ron Paul does not "punt" on abortion. Go to the bottom of this page to see Fred Thompson punting. Ron Paul says personhood begins at conception. His defense of the unborn is bolder than 99% of all other politicians. (Kudos to Alan Keyes.) Ron Paul does everything a federal Congressman can do, short of violating his oath to support the Constitution, declaring himself absolute dictator of the United States, and re-writing state laws on abortion. No other Presidential candidate has a better chance of winning and turning the tide on abortion. Ron Paul deserves the support of Christians.
Paul sins against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children. "Bob Enyart sins against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children."

Is that a Godly statement? What concrete action has Enyart taken recently to prevent the states from murdering children? None. Or at least no more than Ron Paul has.
And to the extent that Paul knows in his heart that abortion is wrong, to that extent he is also a traitor to his nation, and even its Constitution, lusting after power instead of standing for the right to life of the vulnerable. "Ron Paul lusting after power." That's hysterical! The only candidate who really doesn't want to be President, but simply wants to chop down the federal government to Constitutional proportions.
Ron Paul is not qualified to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a nation. Ron Paul is a Christian and a decent man, and Enyart's slander of him is unChristian and indecent.
The inalienable right to life trumps states' rights, and no state has the right to legitimize the owning of blacks, killing of Jews, or aborting children. No state has the MORAL right to legitimize slavery or murder, but under the Constitution it has a LEGAL right to do so without federal interference. A candidate who takes an oath to "support the Constitution" also has no moral right to impose federal power on state laws. To do so is to violate a solemn oath.
If you support Ron Paul, you support tolerance of the massacre of innocence, and I call on you to repent. This is egregious and slanderous reasoning. It's ungodly and an embarrassment to an otherwise fine talk show host. I call on Bob Enyart to repent of his slander against Ron Paul.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com    		 Kevin Craig
www.VFTonline.com

Round 2

Bob Enyart counter-responds Reply by Kevin Craig
Ron Paul violates 5th and 14th amendments, undermines Constitution - Jan. 2, 08:54 PM  
On today's BEL radio show, I read from the post of a Libertarian Party candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Missouri who criticized me for exposing Ron Paul as being pro-choice, state by state. That would be me.

Bob did not link to this webpage. I wonder why.

Like Paul (and like John Kerry, etc.), many of his supporters here appear to be personally against abortion, but willing to allow the states to systematically murder innocent children. "Willing to allow"? First, is it really the case that there is a state that officially engages in the "systematic murder of innocent children?" Exactly which state employee or officer or elected official is paid with taxpayer funds to murder innocent children? Can Enyart provide a link to the "Colorado State Office of Systematic Child Murder?" Is there a section in the government code that says "The office of child murderer shall be voted upon every two years. His salary shall be $x. He must be accredited by the State Child Murder Board before he can assume his office."

Oh, I see . . . what Enyart is saying (in typically emotionally unstable rhetoric) is that some states do not punish private parties who kill their unborn children.

And what exactly is a federal congressman supposed to do about a state government that will not punish abortionists the way Bob Enyart thinks they should be punished? What powers does the U.S. Constitution give to the President of the United States to amend the criminal codes of any of the 50 states? (At least there's a logical connection between Ron Paul as a federal legislator and the idea of re-writing state legislation; but Enyart is trying to dissuade people from voting for Ron Paul for President, and so his criticism of Ron Paul is worse than criticizing a state governor for not legislating; Enyart wants the federal executive to usurp the duties of state legislators. What a constitutional mess!)

Should state legislatures that refuse to punish abortionists (the way Enyart thinks they should) be dissolved by the President? One is reminded of the line from the Declaration of Independence, concerning King George III:
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

If someone asks Bob Enyart about Ron Paul, and Enyart says, "Ron Paul favors the systematic murder of innocent children," who would the enquirer think was mentally unbalanced -- Ron Paul or Bob Enyart? If I knew even the slightest bit about Ron Paul, I would think such an accusation is most untrustworthy. Even a little weird.
Unlike Kerry, a major claim of Paul's (and his supporters') is that he will uphold the Constitution. Pro-lifers around the country are now exposing even this as false. To get the vote of conservative Christians, Ron Paul uses rhetoric referring to abortion as murder, and giving lip service to the right to life of the fetus, claiming that he believes that a fetus is not just tissue, but a living human being. All of this language is calculated to cast aspersions on the integrity and honesty of Ron Paul's pro-life rhetoric. As such, it is slanderous.
However, it turns out this represents his "personal view." When it comes to law, Paul states that the federal government should tolerate any state that legalizes abortion. Of course, the Constitution forbids such genocidal apathy. The federal government has the obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: Congressman Ron Paul believes that the federal government should "tolerate" any state that legalizes shoplifting, burglary, armed robbery, embezzlement, larceny, grand theft, and forgery. Does the Constitution forbid such "socialist apathy" in federal legislators? In no way! The federal government has no Constitutional authority to amend the criminal codes of any of the states. It has no authority to arrest anyone violating a state law, trying that person, or punishing that person. Even for murder. That's the way our whole system is set up. Don't like it? Study the Amendment process in Article V.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Here is the entire Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
The Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Many states do not have a Grand Jury. They have "preliminary hearings" or other equivalents, but the Fifth Amendment guarantees were not originally binding on the states, only the Federal government. If I deprive my neighbor of his life, liberty or property, I have not violated his "Fifth Amendment rights." I'm just violating God's Law. The Federal government has no constitutional authority to arrest me, or punish me for depriving my neighbor of his life, liberty or property. Neither does the Mexican government. A federal official who tries to arrest me for violating state laws against depriving someone of life, liberty or property is not a Godly federal official, he is violating his oath to God to support the Constitution. A federal official who takes no legal action against me is not "tolerating" my evil actions, nor is he "willing" that I deny my neighbor his life, liberty or property, he is simply keeping his oath to "support the Constitution." Only the Federal government can violate my neighbor's "Fifth Amendment rights."

Generally speaking, the Fifth Amendment applies to criminals more than the innocent. It says the federal government may not inflict punishments that deprive the convicted of life liberty or property without following "the process" for passing laws, adjudicating guilt, and imposing sentences.
  Most informed Christian conservatives are leery of the 14th Amendment, especially its nefarious tendency to distort state law when applied by liberal federal judges. For example, the 14th Amendment has been used to completely overturn the original meaning of the First Amendment, which it was not originally intended to affect. These resources are important:

For Bob Enyart to say that the 14th Amendment gives the Federal government the authority to enforce all rights as they apply to personal crimes and property crimes ("life, liberty or property") is to advocate the complete federalization of all the criminal codes of all the states. I can't even begin to describe how awful this would be. This sweeping proposal would clearly be a complete revolution of federalism and law in the United States. It would be hard to imagine a more radical and far-reaching revolution than the complete federalization of 50 codes of criminal law in the states. It not only annuls the U.S. Constitutional doctrine of federalism, it virtually re-writes all state constitutions.

Unbelievable.

To understand why the 14th amendment is unconstitutional and unChristian, one must first review the original Constitutional doctrine of "enumerated powers."

Second, we must de-mythologize President Lincoln, unquestionably one of the worst Presidents in American history:

King Lincoln and the Second American Revolution
Pro Libertate

I believe slavery is unChristian, but the Constitution allowed the states to retain the power to have slaves if they wanted. The Bill of Rights did not free the slaves. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights together give states the right to legalize slavery. I'm sorry, but that's a fact. The Constitution would not have been ratified if it took away the states' right to have slavery. And the Declaration of Independence says that each state has the right to secede from the union if the federal government infringes on the rights retained by the states. Lincoln did not choose to follow the Constitution. He decided not to follow the Amendment process in Article V. Unlike William Wilberforce, who abolished the slave trade in Britain without killing any British, Lincoln -- who cared little about Negroes or the slavery issue, more about federal control -- ordered nearly 700,000 American casualties. The 14th Amendment was imposed unconstitutionally on the southern states as an act of war.

Do we really want to start down the road to end abortion the way slavery was ended? Ron Paul (who also opposes slavery) says no. Ron Paul thus stands in the tradition of great Christians like William Wilberforce. Bob Enyart follows Abraham Lincoln. History will judge.

Third, consider the dangers of a militarized/federalized police:

Using the 14th Amendment to give the federal government authority over every law in every state that relates to life, liberty or property is a prescription for a totalitarian dictatorship of unimaginable horror.

And Enyart calls this "conservative."

Unbelievable.
A perverse official could deny that a black person or a child, is a person. But supposedly, Ron Paul, as in his own Sanctity of Life bills, would have the federal government declare that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." And then in the most obvious hypocrisy against both God's law and even the Constitution, Ron Paul argues, and as head of the Executive branch he would put into law: I think Enyart is admitting that Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception, that "personhood" begins at conception.

Ron Paul could, of course, be a candidate for a state legislature, where he could press for a law criminalizing infringements on the rights to life, liberty or property which all persons, including the unborn, have. His strategy could be like that of South Dakota: pass a pro-life bill and simply ignore the Supreme Court when it strikes down the state law under Roe v. Wade. ("Alito has made his decision; let him enforce it!")

But Ron Paul is a federal legislator, not a state legislator, and he has no authority under the U.S. Constitution to write laws for any of the states, enforce those laws, or punish violators of those laws. As a candidate for federal executive, his tie to state legislation is even further removed. Isn't this "Constitution 101?"

"any State has the right to deprive any unborn person of life, for any reason, and by my own hypocritical oath as a doctor, and now by my pledge as a presidential candidate, I will not enforce the 5th or 14th amendments of the very constitution I claim to support, because my lust for power supersedes any other commitment I claim, whether to our man-made constitution or to God's command, Do not murder." -Ron Paul (on Truth Serum)

 Not a single person who signed the U.S. Constitution would say that any federal officer who has taken an oath to support the Constitution has any constitutional authority to force a state to write a law against any crime against life liberty or property. The Constitution would not have been ratified if it had given anyone in the federal government such power over state laws.

To say that Ron Paul has a "lust for power" is kooky, given Ron Paul's personal demeanor and political philosophy. To say that he has a "lust for power" because he refuses to exercise Bob Enyart's prescription for unconstitutional power is (1) self-contradictory and (2) pathologically kooky.
Creep.
Kook.

(ignoring, I confess, 1 Peter 2:23)

-Bob Enyart
(At KGOV.com, we expose the liberal in the conservative!)		 -Kevin Craig
(exposing the totalitarian dictator in the "Christian conservative")
source: theologyonline.com  
  Postscript:

Eamonn Sullivan reminds us of Robert Bolt's play, "A Man for All Seasons," an account of Thomas More and his refusal to accept King Henry VIII's claim to be supreme head of the Church of England (and what follows is gratefully plagiarized from Sullivan's blog). Some of More's supporters urged him to ignore the law and have his eventual betrayer arrested before he leaves the house, even if he has to make up some pretext, as a way to save himself from execution. More defends the law against this ultimate in "the end justifies the means" arguments.

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Roper's sentiment is as strong as ever. Terrorism, abortion, or whatever the evil du jour, may seem to justify sweeping away inconvenient laws, as long as it makes us or the unborn safer. But it has the opposite effect in the long run.
  Further Postscript: Ends and Means

Ron Paul is truly pro-life.
Bob Enyart is truly pro-life.

Bob Enyart wants the federal government to take authority over the issue of abortion in the states.
Ron Paul believes this strategy cannot be undertaken by a man who is oath-bound to support the Constitution without Amending the Constitution to give the federal government such authority.

At this point we have an honest disagreement over political theory and strategy. Both men believe that killing unborn children is wrong. How to stop it? They agree on the end, but not the means.

But then Bob Enyart goes further:

Bob Enyart says anyone who does not agree with his means doesn't really agree with the end. Bob Enyart believes that anyone who does not agree with his federalization strategy to end abortion is not truly anti-abortion. In fact, such a person is a child-hater and a mass-murderer. And anyone who votes for such a lying mass-murderer is sinning against God and needs to repent.

This is bad reasoning. This is unChristian reasoning. Bob should repent of it.

Round 3

Libertarian Candidate Craig Exposes Ron Paul

enyart.com | KGOV.com 

 Comments by Kevin Craig
Jan 3, 2008

MO Libertarian Party Candidate Kevin Craig Admits the Truth : A libertarian party candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Missouri, Kevin Craig, admits the obvious truth on Bob Enyart Live, that Ron Paul would allow the states to continue the killing of unborn children.

 I got a call from Bob Enyart today, inviting me to appear on his radio show. I accepted, knowing he disagreed strenuously with my position, but hoping that he might have looked at this webpage. (There is little evidence that he did.)

The webpage linked in the left-hand column contains audio files so you can listen to a recording of the radio broadcast.

Enyart employs the same technique as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly: when they invite on their show a guest whose views they disagree with, it is not to give the guest an opportunity to set forth and explain his views, but to give the host a chance to "denounce" and "expose" the evil of the guest's views. The guest is repeatedly cut-off and words are put in his mouth. I confess I root for O'Reilly when his guest is a "secular progressive."

But it's disheartening when Enyart treats a pro-life brother in Christ this way.

I have a Jewish friend who says this is not very Christian. I can't disagree.

Ron Paul is a courageous defender of the unborn in Congress, regularly sponsoring legislation to recognize that the unborn are persons, and seeking to strip away the power the federal government uses to nullify state anti-abortion laws. But instead of being treated with honor as a fellow pro-life Christian, and instead of an intelligent discussion of pro-life strategies, Ron Paul is treated to vicious insults and the plug is pulled on the voice of his supporters.

Enyart continues to portray Ron Paul as someone who secretly favors abortion.

And he now spreads his slander toward me:
Also, Craig admits that as a Libertarian Candidate for a federal seat, he is opposed to the fourteenth amendment, because it requires equal protection of all persons under the law. Right. I am opposed to the 14th Amendment because it requires equal protection, apple pie, liberty, and justice for all. That's why I oppose the 14th Amendment.

Not because that was the Amendment used by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to nullify all the state anti-abortion laws in effect at the time:

Abortion and the Judicial Imperium

How could any Godly Christian be against that? PTL for the 14th Amendment and "equal protection!"

And I certainly don't oppose the 14th Amendment because it was imposed on the states under a military dictatorship.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Truth About the 14th Amendment

Everyone knows KevinCraig loves military dictatorships.

No; it's that "equal protection" stuff that makes me oppose the 14th Amendment.

(I don't even like unequal protection. I just want as many people as possible unprotected.)
This Libertarian candidate therefore approves of Ron Paul in large part because even though Paul believes an unborn child is a person, and to intentionally kill that child is murder, even still, Ron Paul would not enforce the U.S. Constitution and its requirement of equal protection for all persons. Bob is right again. I support Ron Paul in large part because he would not enforce the Constitution.

Seriously, as far as I know, no pro-life legal scholar has ever advocated using the 14th Amendment to empower the federal government to compel the states to punish abortionists. The reason is simple: doing so involves a complete overthrow of the American legal system and an invitation to federal totalitarianism.

The rest of the webpage at left is a repeat of rhetoric responded to above.
Thus, this Libertarian Party candidate helped established the truth that Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state. Like Paul (and like John Kerry, etc.), many of his supporters appear to be personally against abortion, but willing to allow the states to systematically murder innocent children. Unlike Kerry, a major claim of Paul's (and his supporters') is that he will uphold the Constitution. Pro-lifers around the country are now exposing even this as false. To get the vote of conservative Christians, Ron Paul uses rhetoric referring to abortion as murder, and giving lip service to the right to life of the fetus, claiming that he believes that a fetus is not just tissue, but a living human being. However, it turns out this represents his "personal view." When it comes to law, Paul states that the federal government should tolerate any state that legalizes abortion. Of course, the Constitution forbids such genocidal apathy. The federal government has the obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

A perverse official could deny that a black person, or a child, is a person. But supposedly, Ron Paul, as in his own Sanctity of Life bills, would have the federal government declare that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." And then in the most obvious hypocrisy against both God's law and even the Constitution, Ron Paul argues, and as head of the Executive branch he would put into law:

"any State has the right to deprive any unborn person of life, for any reason, and by my own hypocritical oath as a doctor, and now by my pledge as a presidential candidate, I will not enforce the 5th or 14th amendments of the very constitution I claim to support, because my lust for power supersedes any other commitment I claim, whether to our man-made constitution or to God's command, Do not murder." -Ron Paul (on Truth Serum)

Creep.

 (I still can't believe that Enyart says I oppose the 14th Amendment "because it requires equal protection." That's pretty weird.)

Bob Enyart wants a monarch to impose laws on the states; in short, he wants every thing America fought against in the American Revolution. He wants to abolish the 10th Amendment and the whole theory of "enumerated powers" which undergirds the Constitution.

His political strategy to overcome abortion is based on pure political power, imposed from the top down. Like Lincoln, he probably would not be deterred by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if needed to accomplish his goal.

William Wilberforce, by contrast, realized that our central strategy must be Changing Hearts and Minds, as Chuck Colson reminds us:

You see, he realized that in order to get rid of a systemic evil, you had to begin to change the way in which the people lived their lives, in which they thought about the real purposes and meaning in life.

So if we really want to change America for the better, we need to get rid of the idea of a “top-down” approach that says that if we just get the right people elected, the right judges appointed, the right laws passed, all will be well. What’s going to change the course of history—as Wilberforce showed us—is moral reformation and recommitment to the common good.

If we Christians deal with these kinds of issues and stay at our posts and try to reform this culture, I will have a lot more confidence in America’s future than I will even if my favorite candidate wins.

Ron Paul is boldly pro-life, but he alone recognizes that the federal government is a far uglier tyranny than the British government was in 1776. Americans need to repent of their trust in Washington D.C. as our savior. Christians should vote for Ron Paul.
  A Final Note: even though the 14th Amendment should be repealed, Bob Enyart doesn't even follow the terms of the Amendment itself. If a state legislature makes a law which deprives someone of "life, liberty, or property," the Amendment says that the federal legislature should remedy that situation:

Section 5. The [federal] Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Most of the problems created by the 14th Amendment have been created by what Harvard Law Professor Raoul Berger called Government by Judiciary, that is, enforcement by the Supreme Court of what the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment requires (even if the Framers of the Amendment never envisioned the amendment to apply to e.g., school prayer, abortion, school busing, etc.). Enyart proposes something somewhat more unconstitutional. Instead of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court  judging the Constitutionality of state legislation, and then ordering states to write laws conforming to Court dictates, Enyart wants the Executive Branch -- specifically, the President -- to write laws for the states that don't deprive anyone of whatever the President says they have the right to. Which is worse, laws being made by an unelected body of nine Justices, or by one elected individual President? Neither are justified by Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment.

So how should abortion be eliminated, according to a more proper understanding of the 14th Amendment? The Congress, led by Ron Paul, passes the "Sanctity of Life Act," which affirms that all persons -- including unborn persons -- have rights to life, liberty, and property. The Court further removes jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, preventing it from striking down state laws like it did in Roe v. Wade. The Congress then tells the state legislatures to write appropriate laws "with all deliberate speed," to use the words of the Court in the famous 14th Amendment case, Brown vs. Board of Education.

Ron Paul is following the 14th Amendment. Bob Enyart is not. The fact that Bob Enyart calls a fine pro-life Christian like Ron Paul (who boldly challenges Congress to obey the 14th Amendment and declare that the unborn are "persons" under the law) an "evil," "godless," "humanistic" "moral relativist" for not following Enyart's idiosyncratic monarchical interpretation of the 14th Amendment is evidence of an ugly hysteria, not sober legal analysis. And Enyart's treatment of Ron Paul is manifestly unChristian.