BUSH APPOINTS PRO-ABORTION 'CATHOLIC' TO HEAD HOME SECURITY

LifeSite Daily News - September 21, 2001 ^ | September 21, 2001 | LifeSite Daily News

[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

[Sursum Corda]

Piffle. I will not be baited by the likes of you. Obviously, you set little store in ethics and morals, as many of your posts over the years have amply illustrated.

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.

[Romulus]

I'm trying to offer you a compliment, actually. We don't always agree, but I've come to rely on you as a hard-headed and rigorous opponent. "Moderate pro-lifer" is lame, and unworthy of you.

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?

[texlok]

>You obviously don't know me very well. I'm definitely for less government. That's why I'm not a registered Republican - because they have grown the government (at least) as much as the Demo-rats. But when it comes to the issue of abortion - I feel that preborn babies are persons, with rights. And what kind of society are we if we don't respect innocent life?

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.

[BillyBoy]

>> He's moving Ridge to another position; this allows for maybe a pro-life replacement to take his place in PA. <<

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.

[FormerLurker]

Excellent answer!

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...

[Storm Orphan]

As I have come to respect you.

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.

[hocndoc]

Whatever becomes of the Office of Home Security, we need people of the highest character and some way for the rest of us, especially those of us who value our privacy and freedom to disagree, to oversee. I want to believe that it's possible, I just worry.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Obviously, you set little store in ethics and morals, as many of your posts over the years have amply illustrated.

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.

[FormerLurker]

I'll tell you something, abortion is not going to destroy my family today, tomorrow, next week, next year. Terrorism could. I care if you try and steal the spotlight from a national tragedy to focus it on a personal choice

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.

[Romulus]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do understand that your mental struggle derives from an instinctive reverence for liberty. Because I know you are a logical and systematic thinker, I hope you'll come to see that the rape and incest "carveouts" are bogus -- red herrings intended to appeal to atavistic revulsion, while drawing attention away from the central question: either human life has inalienable rights, or else it does not; either all of us enjoy this right, or else one does.

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.

[willyboyishere]

Cut the crap, please. What do you suggest, putting Jerry Falwell in Ridge's job?

[incindiary]

It is an issue that society, not goverment, must deal with.

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?

[Storm Orphan]

I'm doing my best. May your God and my reason help me.

[incindiary]

Here's an excellent pro-life site - check it out!

Scroll down to 'LFL's Literature' and read some of articles when you have time. There are some great articles w/ really compelling arguments.

Libertarians for Life

[Brian Kopp DPM]

No, just an old fashioned conservative Republican who 1)abides by his own party platform, and 2)recognizes that the inalienable right to life of all, from conception to natural death, is the foundation upon which all other rights and freedoms rest, and 3)thus can be relied upon to respect our rights as citizens.

Please tell me where this concept departs from basic conservative principles, the Constitution, or the Judeo-Christian ethic?

[Storm Orphan]

Wilco. Thank you.

[Sursum Corda]

Thank you for confirming my observations. ;-)

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

[nopardons]

If you insist on pontificating , implying that you know what is in President Bush's mind, then it is incombent on you to explain yourself. You eedn't have given us a dosiere, just the truth as to whether or not your pronouncements are merely speculative, or informed . They are speclative, and not anything but your own assumptions.

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.

[nopardons]

Thank you, thank you, thank you !

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.

[MVV]

Boy, you nailed it right on the head! I am tickled that Ridge is out of here, one more baby-killer supporter gone!

Signed, A life-long PA resident

and one-time Ridge supporter.