May 10, 2011

Judge Roy Moore Makes Fifth Trip to Iowa, Race42012 Interview

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketJudge Roy Moore has had a busy in Iowa today.  The potential candidate for President, who earlier formed a presidential exploratory committee, started the day off on Jan Mickelson’s program on WHO-Radio.  He made news with the statement that he does not really support the 20-week cutoff abortion bill currently being debated in Iowa.  He is troubled by the contradiction of having a bill claim that life begins at conception, yet does not call for an end to all abortions, only those after 20 weeks.  This position might ruffle some feathers in Iowa, but it one of principle.  He believes as some other pro-lifers do, that this bill institutionalizes abortion in a way that compromises the legal standing of personhood for the unborn.  He believes life begins at conception, or more accurately, fertilization.  He does not consider himself an incrementalist, though he has been accused of being one because he supports the “heartbeat” bill in Ohio that reputedly would ban abortions after a heart beat is heard (about 21 days).

I was able to secure a phone interview with Judge Moore on behalf of Caffeinated Thoughts and Race42012. Recognizing that our country is “in dire straits”, he began the interview with a portion of this quote from Noah Webster about electing just men to office:

The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

The first thing he’d do to reduce the debt that is crippling our nation “is fire a lot of people”.   The debt when Reagan was in office was a trillion dollars.   The current debt is higher than all other deficits combined, over $14T dollars.   Though he considers himself a constitutionalist, he does not consider himself a libertarian.  He would maintain the ban on women in combat and wants to return the position of the military to the way it was BEFORE President Bill Clinton instituted the Don”t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. That would allow the government to ban all known homosexuals from serving.  He also opposes same-sex “marriages” AND civil unions.

He would eliminate the Department of Education, and opposes Race to the Top.

Judge Moore will be speaking this evening at Indian Hills Junior High in Clive, Iowa at 7:00 p.m.   He was invited by Pastor Tom Colson.   The speech is open to the public.

by @ 1:26 pm. Filed under Iowa Caucuses, R4'12 Interviews
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2011/05/10/judge-roy-moore-makes-fifth-trip-to-iowa-race42012-interview/trackback/

22 Responses to “Judge Roy Moore Makes Fifth Trip to Iowa, Race42012 Interview”

  1. Craig for Huck/Beat Obama! Says:

    Wow, great stuff :)

  2. Craig for Huck/Beat Obama! Says:

    Noah Webster:
    The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

    IMHO, electing Huck/Rubio or Huck/Huntsman Jr. in 2012 would go a long way in solving that.

  3. Mark in PA Says:

    Eliminating the Department of education would be interesting… I wonder how many unintended consequences would come out of that? Some good and some bad, I would think.

  4. Metro Says:

    Why does he stop by going back only 20 years on homosexuality? Ask him if he is for laws against sodomy. I’m quite sure he’d say yes.

  5. Craig for Huck/Beat Obama! Says:

    Metro,

    Quit being so gay.

    (just kidding ;))

  6. David Shedlock Says:

    I don’t know if he would or not, Metro. Would that seem like going back a million years to you?

  7. David Shedlock Says:

    ” I wonder how many unintended consequences would come out of that? Some good and some bad, I would think.”

    Can you name three bad? two bad? one bad?

  8. Rombot Says:

    This guy sounds like he is right up your alley, David. if Huck doesn’t run, looks like you won’t have much to worry about.

  9. Jonathan Says:

    The Judge is far too much of a religious candidate for my tastes. I also strongly disagree with his 10 Commandments decision. Was the decision to take the Commandments down wrong? Absolutely. But it was also wrong for Moore to ignore a ruling just because he didn’t like it. He’s not just a citizen who disagreed with a court decision, he was a Judge. Why should anyone ever respect his judicial opinion or rulings when he didn’t do the same?

  10. Bob Hovic Says:

    “He’s not just a citizen who disagreed with a court decision, he was a Judge.”

    Exactly — this guy obviously never belonged on a court, and certainly not in a higher office (which the people of Alabama have recognized). He’s part of the freak show and isn’t worthy of any more attention than … er, Fred Karger.

  11. Jonathan Says:

    #10:

    Bob, that’s not fair. Karger at least has run a TV ad, so his campaign is a step more professional.

  12. Chris L. Says:

    #10 – Bob Hovic,

    I’ll second that motion!

  13. teledude Says:

    This guy will wrap up the Alan Keyes vote this time around!

  14. David Shedlock Says:

    I just reported, you decide.

  15. BlueGrass State of Mind Says:

    Moore is a Romney plant looking to further split the SoCon vote.

  16. Bob Hovic Says:

    “Moore is a Romney plant looking to further split the SoCon vote.”

    Any reason to think that Moore would want to do Romney any favors?

    More to the point, Huckabee, or whoever ends up being the SoCon standard-bearer, will never miss the 0.001% that Moore siphons off.

  17. Pablo Says:

    LOL!!!! Of course, Shedlock is liking him some Roy Moore. What a decision he is going to have to make between Huck and Moore.

  18. SGS Says:

    “But it was also wrong for Moore to ignore a ruling just because he didn’t like it. He’s not just a citizen who disagreed with a court decision, he was a Judge.”

    So, Moore was wrong in recognizing federalism? Was he wrong in recognizing that the federal government, INCLUDING THE JUSTICE BRANCH, has been given a very narrow scope of power by the US Constitution? Was he wrong in that the federal officials, whoever they may be, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL JUDGES, are overextending their reach? Was he wrong in recognizing that only the states, and not the federal government, can do something about religions. Did not the US Constitution mention that the Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Did not we know that only the Congress could make laws, not the federal judges? Are not they supposed to say, yes, this law is constitutional, or that law is unconstitutional, beyond interpreting, or rather, make clear, some present laws? So, why is there a new “law” or “decision” as the case may be, telling us what we can hang in our own state public facility, when there are not supposed to be a law concerning religions? Please enlighten me on where I am mistaken, thank you!

    Yes, I have been following Chief Judge Moore quite close over the years. I do not see where he has crossed the line. It is all of us who have been dumbed down, into believing the federal judges are our stewards on all matters, including the states. In fact, it has happened so often during the first 150 years that the two other branches of our federal government would ignore the decisions by the Supreme Court. It is all about the balance of power. One does not hold anything over other two. And that is for the federal issues only. None of these branches have any power over the states, except for those allocated to them by the US Constitution. Why is it a mistake to try to throw out the crap from our justice system since 1910s?

  19. David Shedlock Says:

    Pablo returns!

  20. jerry franklin Says:

    He’s a great man.

  21. David Shedlock Says:

    @Jerry

    Pablo or Judge Moore?

  22. Craig for Huck/Beat Obama! Says:

    Well, we haven’t seen Pablo’s resume to compare it to Judge Moore. ;)

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main