Thursday, November 29, 2012
Anti-abortion-rights groups slam McCain
Didn't the SBA support "compromising" Romney in 2012? And didn't the SBA support "compromising" McCain in 2008?
Anti-abortion-rights groups slam McCain
Looks like the Veepstakes goes to Sarah Palin
"...The Susan B. Anthony List today issued this statement:
Washington – Today, in response to the announcement that Sen. John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, the President of the Susan B. Anthony List offered the following statement:
"Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn't be a better vice presidential pick," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Women voters are electrified, and Sarah is someone who is truly in sync with the way real American women think. She is a reform-minded woman who will give all Americans, born and unborn, the authentic leadership they deserve."
"The majority of American women support commonsense restrictions on abortion. Adding Palin to the GOP ticket will resonate with independent women voters nationwide. By choosing the boldly pro-life Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has taken his stand as the one true, authentic pro-life ticket." ...
Monday, November 26, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter — Save The 1!
Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter — Save The 1! "...The “burning building” analogy fails because you have no interest in working to save all. You do not get to call yourself pro-life by shutting off the water, sending the fire trucks home, while you stand there watching the building burn down with the 1 inside of it. ..."
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney's Russian connection a deal breaker for serious conservatives--by Cliff Kincaid
Romney's Russian connection a deal breaker for serious conservatives--by Cliff Kincaid
This same video is also running in Minnesota.
"...The second video points out that Massachusetts (under then-Governor Romney) implemented the nation's first homosexual marriage bill and "re-defined marriage." The video features a Massachusetts family warning that local schools in that state required that children in the second grade be required to be taught that "boys can marry boys." Students could NOT be taken out of these classes or even informed when the lessons were being presented. The parents warned Marylanders (and Minnesotans), "Don't make the same mistake." ..."
This same video is also running in Minnesota.
"...The second video points out that Massachusetts (under then-Governor Romney) implemented the nation's first homosexual marriage bill and "re-defined marriage." The video features a Massachusetts family warning that local schools in that state required that children in the second grade be required to be taught that "boys can marry boys." Students could NOT be taken out of these classes or even informed when the lessons were being presented. The parents warned Marylanders (and Minnesotans), "Don't make the same mistake." ..."
Heaven help us!--by Stephen Stone, RA President
Heaven help us!--by Stephen Stone, RA President
"...For all intents and purposes in a "contested race," therefore, our only option as voters is to express our willful support — and thus our alignment with and condoning of — whichever candidate we choose; or to leave that particular race untouched, thus expressing our displeasure with our feet, so to speak, for the lack of an acceptable candidate.
At least the latter way of voting absolves us of any culpability for willfully participating in the destruction of our country at the hands of candidates who don't deserve to be on the ballot (having shown themselves to be corrupt, incompetent, unethical, immoral, deceptive, or otherwise undeserving of our vote).
There's no way to simultaneously vote our displeasure at unacceptable choices laid before us and also pick one! To attempt that is a bit like schizophrenia.
The idea that we can vote against someone we really don't like by voting for someone else we really don't like and call it getting rid of people in office we really don't like is an illogical rationalization — conjured to make us feel good when we vote irrationally. It doesn't excuse us of willfully voting for someone we can't actually support in good conscience on their own merits.
Just because we may be well-intentioned in our desire to get rid of a bad candidate, it literally makes no sense to vote for a similarly bad candidate considered not "as bad" as the object of our scorn.
If a candidate is "bad" (as a candidate, not necessarily as a person), they're "bad" — no matter how they compare with anyone else running for the same office who might also be "bad." A bad candidate is a bad candidate is a bad candidate. Bear in mind that between two unacceptable candidates, one will always be less acceptable than the other candidate in some ways, and more acceptable in other ways. ..."
"...For all intents and purposes in a "contested race," therefore, our only option as voters is to express our willful support — and thus our alignment with and condoning of — whichever candidate we choose; or to leave that particular race untouched, thus expressing our displeasure with our feet, so to speak, for the lack of an acceptable candidate.
At least the latter way of voting absolves us of any culpability for willfully participating in the destruction of our country at the hands of candidates who don't deserve to be on the ballot (having shown themselves to be corrupt, incompetent, unethical, immoral, deceptive, or otherwise undeserving of our vote).
There's no way to simultaneously vote our displeasure at unacceptable choices laid before us and also pick one! To attempt that is a bit like schizophrenia.
The idea that we can vote against someone we really don't like by voting for someone else we really don't like and call it getting rid of people in office we really don't like is an illogical rationalization — conjured to make us feel good when we vote irrationally. It doesn't excuse us of willfully voting for someone we can't actually support in good conscience on their own merits.
Just because we may be well-intentioned in our desire to get rid of a bad candidate, it literally makes no sense to vote for a similarly bad candidate considered not "as bad" as the object of our scorn.
If a candidate is "bad" (as a candidate, not necessarily as a person), they're "bad" — no matter how they compare with anyone else running for the same office who might also be "bad." A bad candidate is a bad candidate is a bad candidate. Bear in mind that between two unacceptable candidates, one will always be less acceptable than the other candidate in some ways, and more acceptable in other ways. ..."
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Living up to the creed--by Alan Keyes
Living up to the creed--by Alan Keyes
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man in whom there is not salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. (Psalm 146:3-4)
This morning, I read an article reporting what Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput said about the priority that should govern how Catholics cast their vote. "We're Catholics before we're Democrats. We're Catholics before we're Republicans. We're even Catholics before we're Americans, because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us."
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man in whom there is not salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. (Psalm 146:3-4)
This morning, I read an article reporting what Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput said about the priority that should govern how Catholics cast their vote. "We're Catholics before we're Democrats. We're Catholics before we're Republicans. We're even Catholics before we're Americans, because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)