National Right to Life, whose expressed and presumed purpose is "the right to life" has endorsed the same presidential candidate that has the support of Republicans for Choice, whose expressed purpose is "choice", a euphemism to cover up abortion, which violates the right to life. How can these two purposes be united by one candidate?
Father Frank Pavone recently recorded You Tube videos, which were posted here, demonstrating the two most commonly used abortion techniques. Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries have just announced that these videos will be used as part of the "Is this what you mean?" project. Father Pavone explains:
We in the pro-life community have been fed up for a long time with "public servants" who can't seem to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. They mask the violence of abortion with the smooth language of "choice," and refuse to protect the victims.
These politicians are found in both major political parties; some hold public office and others seek it. And many Church leaders have been hesitant to discipline such individuals, even though many of them claim to practice their faith.
These abortion supporting politicians get away with what they are doing in large measure because they refuse to talk about what the "choice" actually is. They try to avoid the word "abortion" altogether; but even when they use it, the word has lost practically all its meaning. Voters hear the word but are left with little or no awareness of the gruesome horror it represents.
This election season, it's time for that to change. No matter what politicians or voters or Church officials are or are not going to do, it's time that we who know what abortion is draw a line in the sand and give candidates and office-holders alike this challenge:
If you're going to take a position on abortion, then you're going to have to come clean about what it is. We are no longer going to let you obscure or trivialize the issue. Whether people agree with you or not, you owe it to them to be honest about what you’re talking about.
Therefore we issue this simple call to honesty: We will describe abortion to you, and you tell us if that’s what you’re talking about.
That's it, pure and simple. This is not a debate, nor a threat. It's a call to clarity, a demand for honesty. That is not partisan, nor is it unreasonable; it is not fanatical or inappropriate in any way. Nor is this about religion or morality.
We just want to make sure that we're hearing you. When you say "abortion," we just want to make sure we're both talking about the same thing.
Visit the Priests for Life website.
Why am I directing this at McCain? He supports killing some babies this way.
This is from December, but in case you didn't catch it before (I know it's not a show pro-lifers regularly watch, if ever at all)...Here's your chance to view it again. He handles the abortion question beautifully. What a shame our party is passing up a chance to have this guy make our case and be able to persuade others. Not that I think he persuaded these women, but perhaps some of their audience.
Not if the G.O.P. continues in this direction.
Read Doug's "Hosanna!" to find out why.
They don't call them the "evil party" (D) and the "stupid party" (R) for nothing.
Until 1988, in the state of Washington, both major parties chose delegates to their national conventions (where presidential nominees are chosen) through the caucus system. The pro-death Republican Party Establishment didn't like the outcome that year (our state voted for Pat Robertson), so they changed the rules. Since then, there is virtually a debate before every presidential election year and a shifting in the rules. You can read the history and some of the most recent debate from the perspective of the Establishment here. You might even find some of their arguments compelling, clever as they are.
Last summer, the Washington Republican State Committee voted to shift the rules again for this presidential election year, choosing 51% of the national delegates based on a complicated formula from the results of the primary, and 49% on the "results" of the caucus/convention process. The Democrats will choose theirs based solely on their caucus/convention process. The primary ballot invites the voter to choose between both parties, check a box that declairs their "party affiliation" and then choose from that party's list of candidates. But guess what! Only the Republican primary ballot counts. So there is no incentive for a Democrat to vote on the Democrat side, when they can influence both parties' nomination by voting Republican in the primary, and attending their Democrat caucus. Brilliant!
The caucuses for both parties are held on the same day, at the same time, so if we were smart, we'd stick to the caucus system and be able to avoid party crossover. And of course, I don't mind when Democrats and Independents "cross over" when they really want to switch parties (due to principles the party stands for), and ultimately it would be great if they'd do so in the general in order to support a conservative Republican.
Of course, I tried to warn my party and tried passing a resolution in my district to have it sent up to the state committee, and I couldn't believe how naive my fellow Republicans were. "Oh, they're not going to be voting in our primary. They don't care who our nominee is."
Wrong. A very public Democrat figure, Pete Jackson, son of Scoop Jackson openly admits that he is an Obama supporter, but he chose to vote in the Republican primary. Who was his favorite Republican? In case you haven't guessed, the Democrat's favorite candidate is also the favorite candidate of Republicans for Choice: John McCain.
Pete Jackson, son of the late, longtime Democratic U.S. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Everett, is supporting Obama, but voted for McCain in the primary.
"It was my protest that the Democratic primary didn't count for anything, so I might as well vote for the best Republican," he said.
Of course, now he's backtracking on the comments at Sound Politics. He claims that he forgot to check the required box that he is a Republican, so his vote will be thrown out anyway. Perhaps. But it sure does make you wonder how many Democrats are trying to have it both ways in this presidential race. Conservatives everywhere are baffled at McCain's frontrunner status. How many other states have a Republican primary that can easily be rigged by the Democrats?
