Posted on 04/26/2007 1:26:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.
Excerpts from the American Spectator:
The Real DealDon't be fooled. Don't betray your principles or the cause due to fear of Hillary and the moonbats. Would Ronald Reagan cower in fear and betray his principles?4/19/2007
~~snip~~
"Despite the calls to leave litmus tests behind, pro-life Rudy reluctance is justified. If nominated, Giuliani would be the most pro-choice Republican presidential candidate in history. Even Gerald Ford, an archetypal Republican for choice, backed a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade during the 1976 campaign. Barry Goldwater, who was nominated before abortion became a national issue and outspokenly pro-choice in retirement, backed the human life amendment in his final Senate race."
"Giuliani has feted NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He has praised Margaret Sanger and repeatedly accused mainstream pro-lifers of wanting to put pregnant women in jail. His concessions to date have been minor and offered without enthusiasm."
"Abortion opponents can ill afford to give up their leverage in the GOP. Their position has little support among the cultural elite; many in the Republican establishment would like nothing better than to “get beyond issues like that.” If pro-lifers support Giuliani because he “hates” abortion, it will be difficult for them to criticize “personally opposed” Democrats like John Kerry in the future. Their campaign to get bishops to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic Democrats will seem partisan and hypocritical. And the whole movement may be seen as less serious and less influential."
~~snip~~
Keep the faith!!
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“Thought crimes” on the radar:
Christians in bull’s-eye in new ‘hate crimes’ plan [Urgent we block Giuliani and gay agenda!]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823754/posts
Goodnight all.
If we’re going to run a NYC pol, then we should run Marty Markowitz. Okay, he’s a dem, but he gives these great speeches that invariably mention eight or nine different restaurants regardless of whether he’s talking about budgets or speaking at a high school graduation ceremony.
With, or without, their “rights” the environment in the military is rather unhospitable for them, and this is not likely to change regardless of official policies and pronouncements. Plus, the gay subculture is not quite conducive to driving them into military en masse. Thus I see no need for getting agitated.
“I am not foaming at the mouth at the mentioning of them, though, so that must make me an activist.”
Perhaps not “activist”, but certainly “tolerant”, which places you perhaps unwittingly in support of their disgusting advocacy.
“tolerant”? - why, yes - to an extent. As somebody said it in a somewhat similar context about 100 yrs ago, “as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses”. Beyond that, from my libertarian leanings I learned the the phrase “none of my business” is a profound one.
the the = that the
I’d give it up on the rudy thing. He doesn’t stand a chance and really isn’t qualified.
His entire campaign will revolve around explaining the Inner Circle dinner.
Remember, what is a yawn in NYC is a scandal in most other places.
as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses”.
That would be Jenny Jerome (Winston Churchill’s mother) and she was from NYC.
Well, I hold a different opinion. I see him as the strongest of anti-hillary candidates, and given hillary totalitarian leanings, I see him as worthy of my support. The lesser evil is the greater good, as one Niccolo Machiavelli used to teach.
DUNCAN HUNTER’S POSITION ON ABORTION/RIGHT TO LIFE -
1. Right to Life Amendment:
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
2. Federal laws relating to abortion and human life protections (e.g, embryonic research and end of life, etc.):
There are several areas of federal law that require human life protections. I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor’s native state’s parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
The Parent’s Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.
I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:
I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.
I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.
I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.
I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.
Machiavelli is for the same kind of personality that reads the Art of War. Neither have any real application, but offer good justification for bad decisions.
Rudy is not going to beat Hillary. No way.
And Rudy is one of the least qualified to lead the GWOT.
So if those are your criteria, your backing the wrong man.
Yes, I read that one before. “Nihilists” at work.
I remember the discussions at the Collegiate level in my house of “existentialism”, “Nietzsche”, “Dostoyevsky”, etc. as a child in the very early 1960’s. So early in the ‘60’s I believe the dirt was still being tossed on the grave of 1959. Ad nauseum the discussions went on.
Although the link I provide below can, and probably will cause some to become brain numbed as well cause eyes to glaze over, and will possibly need to be approached more than five sittings to complete, it provides an interesting insight into those discussions I remember. As well provides us all some source of insight possibly as we reflect upon our society today.
I’m certain other sub memories also come into play here that I haven’t resurrected as yet thus my intent may be confusing to those whom might read up on “Nihilism” in the following link, but truly one cannot be hurt by simply reading the posting and understanding the content.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
Both “Art of War” and Machiavelli are required reading for military staff officers and for politicians. So much for “neither have any real application”. Why, look at our own WJC of the stained blue dress to see the real life applications to making a political career and to the political survival. One needs not merely read the texts, of course, but to ponder and to understand them. But then again, that applies to many other texts.
Then be prepared for Klinton in the White House .
Better an enemy in front of me then behind me.
Both are still required reading for strategy by military, though there really is no “required reading list” for pols. Perhaps there should be.
The Prince, interestingly enough, was written to curry favor with the family after the Big M made some strategic errors. Basically it’s a butt kissing book.
Durasell’s Rules for Business #121: If the guy sitting across the table from you brings up either The Art of War or The Prince, understand you’re dealing with a second rate mind. The only rational response is a triangle paper football flicked at his left eye.
Agreed!
Boogeyman.Dont worry, the beast will defeat herself.
He certainly is not qualified to be the republican nominee.But as a rat bastard I would say YES!
It is his gun grabbing ways that does it for me.
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.