I’ve also been a supporter of the war from the beginning and now I have also started to question whether a full-scale invasion rather than some missile strikes and other limited actions was the right choice. This is basically Ron Paul’s and Baldwin’s view. I cringe though when I read some of the statements that sound like they come from the Loony Left about the Iraq war. Baldwin says we’ve become an unwanted occupying force and if the US was similarly occupied many of us would become “insurgents.” This is a position of ignorance. Much of the violence has been caused by foreign terrorists, not Iraqi “Freedom Fighters.” And a recent BBC poll of Iraqis shows that many of the Iraqis (actually a majority) want the US presence to remain because of the security gains of the surge. Anecdotal evidence from some troops and journalists is in agreement.

This sort of ranting keeps me voting Republican.

And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics.

That does need to be clarified. I think he means that he would not protect an abortion clinic if it was shut down by a state under state law.

The scenerio would go like this: A state passes a state law closing down abortion clinics. State autorities move in to close it down. Planned Parenthood goes to court. Federal courts order the state to stop closing down clinics. They don’t stop. What now? The Federal courts order President Baldwin in to protect clinics from State autorities. He, as chief executive of Federal Law, does not choose to execute that particular unconstitutional order. The constitution is the highest law of the land, so it is with a clear conscience that President Baldwin does not execute an enforcement of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

It is how checks and balances are supposed to work. The president swears an oath to protect the constitution, not to protect judicial decrees. Each branch of government is responsible for its part in upholding the law.