Posted on 03/17/2012 11:01:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
All the angst over Santorum, Newt, etc, is almost irrelevant. I am a realist. I learned that in my youth, when I fought to survive. Now, I do the same for my country in the best way I know how, with what I have left. I am sure you are doing the same and I don't fault you for any of it.
Then you dangerously underestimate the level of delusion the enemy has managed to manufacture among the Useful Idiots who support him.
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization"...--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
I always thought of it as just plain slimy.
Funny, you have embraced this article which is exactly that - a manufacture for useful idiots.
Later, two-face.
[now we all have to figure out a way to prevent any further damage]
More Tea in Capitol Hill.
Enough to start impeaching and keep impeaching until we get an American and not a Marxist, or a Catholic, or a Mormon, or any collective state cultist — in the White Hut again.
>>you have embraced this article
I’ve embraced nothing but the self-evident fact that there are character issues that you are unable to discuss in meaningful dialogue.
This may come as a shock to you, but some folks still believe that the character of the POTUS should be more than just a facade.
And I guess that disqualifies Newt for you as well, then.
>>And I guess that disqualifies Newt for you as well, then.
In this case, the confessing and forgiven Weavil is the lesser one.
Pennsylvania law requires school districts to pay ONLY for resident students who enroll in cyberschools.
Santorum and family were living in Virginia at the time, and they STILL live in Virginia. They can live anywhere they want, but they didn't have the right to charge a school from another state to pay for their children homeschooling.
Under PA state law, Santorum was still a resident there. A minor detail that the libs using this as an attack against him failed to acknowledge
THey may be embarrased that Ron Paul had enough support in Missouri that Paul could team up with Romney to attack Santorum’s delegates, and Gingrich didn’t.
>>Catholics are not Americans?
That would depend upon whether the dogmatic political and militaristic framework they operate within is a product of an Individual mind, which Almighty God Hath Created Free — or one they were simply regurgitating because that’s what some parrot, adorned with vestigial plumage left over from the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian Empire’s state-established cult of sun-worshiping Eunuchs, told them to think.
Anyone who will fight for the right of other Individuals to explore and articulate the relationship between themselves and their creator, regardless of their religious taxonomy, is an Ok American in my book. Don’t you agree?
Following March 9, 1994, nomination by President Bill Clinton, confirmation by the United States Senate on June 15, 1994, and reception of commission on June 16, 1994, Paez became the second Mexican American to sit on the bench of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a district that covers Los Angeles.[2]
Paez was confirmed by Senate on March 9, 2000, by a 59-39 vote, more than four years after President Clinton first nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Paez waited 1,506 days to be confirmed, which at that time was the longest wait for a vote by any judicial nominee in U.S. history.
In a 2009 decision, he held that a San Francisco resolution urging the Vatican to withdraw a directive against same-sex adoptions does not violate the Establishment Clause. [3]
In a 2011 decision, he issued the majority opinion upholding a lower court's blocking of the most controversial parts of the Arizona SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect.[4]
This story originally appeared in the December 1995 issue under the title, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Santorum."You have to ask yourself two questions. First, why did this paper ressurect an old hit piece on Santorum, and CHANGE the headline to the "pro-choice" quote?
And second, why are conservatives who can have no doubt about Santorum's pro-life record posting this decade's old article now, when the supposed Gingrich strategy is for Santorum to get as many votes as possible to stop Romney?
This article certainly won't keep Romney from getting a single vote, and will likely help Romney win more votes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
This article is from 1995.
In an article written by a liberal, quoting liberals attacking Santorum back in 1995 when he was a Newt Gingrich Protoge, shouldn't you be embarrased that what you have been saying about Santorum is exactly like what the liberal hacks were saying to attack him in 1995?
Or maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see certain "Gingrich" supporters agreeing wholeheartedly with the opinions of pro-abortion liberals being quoted in a liberal article written to attack Gingrich and Santorum for upsetting their liberal bastion in the senate and beating their "good-old-boy" Wofford for the seat.
By Eric Konigsberg
That is the quote from Rick Santorum, as said to Eric Konigsberg, the author of the article which appeared in Philadelphia Magazine in December 1995.
You may have your own ideas about the quality of the magazine, but it has been around since the 1960's, monthly on both the newsstands and by subscription, and is definitely not a "city paper" type of periodical.
Why links to hard-left articles about Karen Santorum.
Show me in the article where the source of that quote is given. That’s the point. It isn’t.
The point in the article was that before it was an issue for him, he hadn’t really thought about it and was “pro-choice”. Some of the strongest people I know in the pro-life movement were the same way. They opposed abortion, knew it was “wrong”, but weren’t involved in the movement, and considered themselves “pro-choice”, in not wanting to impose their views on others.
But when they were confronted with the issue, and had to think about it, they realized that this was not a tenable position, and became outspokenly pro-life.
What I DID like about the article is how even when trying to smear Rick, they had to admit that Rick came out as pro-life even though he was running in a district that was pro-abortion, where there was only a minority of republicans who were pro-life. The article even derides him for being too conservative for his district, and for not “representing” his constituents well enough.
Mostly, the article simply asserts things, or quotes 3rd-hand sources (like they provide a “quote” from his wife, but it turns out the “quote” was given to them by the abortion-doctor who had once delivered her and then shacked up with her when she was barely old enough to do so.
It’s sad to see so many supposed “Gingrich supporters” so happy about this article, and so willing to say they agree with the liberals who are quoted. It certainly is against the supposed “Gingrich strategy” of pairing up to beat ROmney, but the Missouri caucus may show that wasn’t much of a strategy anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.