Posted on 09/21/2001 3:26:55 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
BUSH APPOINTS PRO-ABORTION 'CATHOLIC' TO HEAD HOME SECURITY
WASHINGTON, September 21, 2001 (LSN.ca) - In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States, President George Bush announced last night the creation of a Cabinet-level position to head the new Office of Homeland Security. In a great disappointment to pro-lifers, Bush named notoriously pro-abortion Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, to head the office.
Matt Abbott, director of public affairs for America's Pro-Life Action League told LifeSite, "If Ridge refuses to ensure the security of the most helpless citizens of his state - the unborn - how can he be expected to safeguard security for the nation?" Abbott also commented that Ridge is "a self-proclaimed Catholic while maintaining his strident pro-abortion position. What kind of principles does a person like that have? It makes you uncertain of such a person's leadership qualities."
See related coverage on the position and Ridge's pro-abortion stand:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010920/ts/attack_bush_homeland_dc_2.html
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Mar/mar21for.htm
To give the Devil his due, you display a certain cunning in your posts. You seek to enmesh people in the nettles of irrelivency and to send them down side trails.
All in all, one can not easily mistake yours for an informed Catholic conscience. The substance and training are lacking.
Personally, the whole concept of "homeland security" (the krauts had another name, which I refrain from using, lest I cause a riot and get this thread pulled) gives me the creeps. What are we getting ourselves into here?
You hit the issue right on the head, thanks for making my point (and we are in agreement about the size of the gov't).
It is an issue that society, not goverment, must deal with. They are two seperate things. Members of our society that have had/will have had abortions, had abortions for a reason. We as a society have to figure that reason out. Until we do, it's pointless to argue.
If we as a society, come to a majority conclusion that abortion is wrong (meaning you could get the 3/4 states' votes to add it to the Constitution) then we should act on the gov't level. But we as a society are divided on the matter, hence RvW, and hence the endless debates.
True, I doubt you'll see the pro-life organizations complain when Lt. Governor (soon to be acting Governor) Mark Schweiker spends the next year and a half signing pro-life legislation from the Pennsyvania legislature that Ridge vetoed.
Furthermore, why is it that we single out only certain pro-abort Republicans? Christie Todd Whitless and Tom Ridge have their stances plastered all over TV when they were nominated for their posts. By contrast, "conservative" Gale Norton is just as pro-abortion as Whitman and Ridge, but you'd never know about it, because all the pro-life organizations stayed fairly silent when HER nomination came up. In fact, we were told that she was EXTREMELY conservative merely because all these enviromental wackos opposed her. The truth turned out to be far from that-- in many ways she was even worse than Whitman. At least a liberal Republican like Whitman was forced to give token support to the conservative leaders. Norton never did any such thing, she was a left-leaning Libertarian who merely decided to put an "R" next to her name so she'd have a better shot at winning elections. She never campaigned on behalf on conservative Colorado Republicans. On the contrary, she tried to destroy several of them (see Wayne Allard).
The silence was (and still is) defending. If you're gonna complain about Ridge, it's time we stop pretending Gale Norton is Ms. Social Conservativism.
Thanks incindiary. :)
Couldn't help but answer the question the poster had asked, it only seems like common sense to me. What's the difference between those who would crash a plane into the World Trade Center and those who condon the wholesale slaughter of little babies? I myself can't find much of a difference...
As to the Homeland, I agree. Smacks of fer Fatherland.
On the moderate pro-lifer - I admit my dilemma. Emotionally, I would prefer to be a hard line prolifer.
Lacking the "luxury" of divine guidance, the best I can rely on is an intuitive understanding that life must begin awful darn early, but the mitigating circumstances of rape victims, incest victims, and the idea of my wife in a crisis pregnancy haunt me.
Further, given the extremely unique nature of pregnancy, I shudder at the police state tactics necessary to enforce a law against all abortions - pregnancy tests for all women vacationing outside the U.S., investigations of every miscarriage, govt access to medical records...
Please believe me when I say I have and do struggle with this issue mightily.
I hope you understand I have publicly admitted a true weakness that I struggle with and am trying to resolve. I count myself an ally to pro-lifers, but when it becomes such an obsession that it dominates every non-related issue, it drives me away.
Hope you can respect that.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/index.cfm
Take a look at the right hand, bottom, "The myth of Posse Comitatus." http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/article.cfm?article=7
or this one http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/article.cfm?article=11
"Civil Support missions are support tasks where the military is not in the lead, but instead provides assistance to desinganted civilian authorities and agencies on either a case-by case or a continuing basis. "
Farther down, the article talks about "Soveriegnty Preservation" and "Civil Disturbance Assist." There's an interesting table toward the middle.
We had a flood 3 years ago, and the Texas National Guard was very welcome in our neighborhood. I can't tell you how reassuring it was to see them at the corner when the neighborhood was practically empty. We took them coffee and snacks and thanks. But, I kind of like the limited use of military forces within the country's borders.
Just between you and me, I fear that, if sink were arrested by the new Homeland Security for being "Catholic," there just wouldn't be enough evidence in his posts here on Free Republic to convict him.
And just why do you suppose there are school shootings and mothers murdering their kids more often than ever before? I myself think it just might have something to do with the "official" sanctioning of baby murder. How can ANYONE think that killing babies won't spill over into our society in other nefarious ways? I'd say that officially sanctioned murder of little babies goes a long way towards desensitizing people towards other forms of murder. If one can kill an innocent little baby, what would be so hard in killing someone who might not be as innocent?
I also believe that you don't care if people in the military, police, firefighters, EMS, etc. are pro-life or pro-choice, just as long as they do what they can to save or defend your family's life in an emergency and hence, what Gov. Ridge's personal choices are should not matter as long as he does the job he was picked to do.
It is politically expedient to be "pro-choice" these days. That is due to years of brainwashing thanks to the media and those who allowed this to happen in the first place. Those you mention have been desensitized to think that killing of babies is ok if the mother feels it to be a good idea. The mother thinks it's ok because that's what people have told her. How did we as a people ever get to where we are now?
Regardless of any of this, I'm a bit apprehensive about Gov. Ridge not just because he himself feels baby killing is ok, but because he also feels that US Citizens don't need assault weapons. Being the fact he'll be the head of some yet undefined "Home Security" agency, this causes me to worry about the future of our Country as we know it.
I have hopes for you because I'm pretty sure you're not interested in the "might makes right" arguments that we see all around us these days.
Best wishes.
Well, there are already laws on the books that protect the preborn. If you want some examples, I can get them for you. In many states, if a pregnant woman is physically attacked and her baby is killed, the perpetuator(sp?) can be charged with either a double homicide, or a homicide and manslaughter. Yet abortion is legal.
So if the baby is 'wanted' - its considered a person, with value... but if it is 'unwanted', its just a piece of garbage? The laws are contradictory.
I'll re-word my previous question...What kind of government does not respect innocent human life?
Scroll down to 'LFL's Literature' and read some of articles when you have time. There are some great articles w/ really compelling arguments.
Please tell me where this concept departs from basic conservative principles, the Constitution, or the Judeo-Christian ethic?
To be honest, my 'angst', if you will, is with the blurry moral vision of many good posters to FreeRepublic. Each and every one of us has a soul on loan from God. It is up to us to keep it whole, seek care and repair as needed and return it to our Maker without major blots when we leave this mortal coil.
Without really meaning to cause waves, I fear that I can not but bristle at fuzzy speech which touches on morals. Sinkspur just happened to cross my sights at an inopportune moment, although I readily admit that he has be an irritant for some time.
Perhaps it is the fact that he unabashedly claims to be Catholic which sets me off. In truth, his moral obtuseness should bother me even if he claimed to be an atheist.
I will seek to be more "ecuminical" in the future. :-)
Sursum Corda
Yes, I have been published. Where or why is no concern of your's. I don't need to talk about it ; unlike you. Since I don't claim to be able to foresee the future, nor that I have the President's confidence, I don't really have to tell you any more about myself. Have I ever had " inside info " that I shared on this site ? Yes , but that wasn't in a wartime situation, and I won't do it again.
No, I won't get into historical facts. You can't do that here. You get accused of " Catholic bashing " and the abuse button gets pushed by those who feel free to tell nonCatholics what to believe , but don't want anyone to tell them ; let alone proven, documented, historical facts.
Signed, A life-long PA resident
and one-time Ridge supporter.
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.