You're such a weasel, davis, that you're going to have to put in the entire context before I'm going to believe that the title of this article is true.
These "....." are commonly used by liberals and libertarians to twist the actual wording because they mean something was left out.
You wouldn't bullshit us now, davis, would you?
Hey !!!! I resemble that!!!! lol
PAT ROBERTSON DENOUNCES "EXTREME" SUPPORT FOR THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Rev. Pat Robertson, President and founder of the Christian Coalition, was interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts on ABC's This Week (10/3/99):
BUSH IS "VERY ACCEPTABLE" TO ROBERTSON
SAM DONALDSON: "...[Y]ou like George W. Bush. And yet a lot of people think that he doesn't have the social agenda on abortion or anything else that in the past, has been the redweed of your Coalition."
REV. PAT ROBERTSON: "Well, I think he's a very fine candidate. Because I'm not endorsing anybody yet, but I think he would make a very acceptable candidate."
PAT DOESN'T WANT BUSH TO BE TOO CONSERVATIVE
SAM DONALDSON: "....[H]ere's something that you said recently, unless you want to deny it. (Laughter) Since it's not inflammatory, you probably won't. 'I personally am interested -- not interested in pushing him...' -- meaning George W. Bush -- 'so far to the right that he will not be electable.'"
REV. PAT ROBERTSON: "Yes."
SAM DONALDSON: "So, what is it? Is it principle, or is it who can win?"
REV. PAT ROBERTSON: "Well, it's principle, but at the same time, I quote that great paragon of virtue, Lyndon Johnson, who said to his left-wing supporters, don't push me so far to the left that I can't win. And I was just merely paraphrasing him. ..."
ROBERTSON THINKS IT'S OK TO MURDER CHILDREN SIRED BY THE WRONG PARENTS
COKIE ROBERTS: "[D]o you think in the past that the Coalition and some of its followers have pushed candidates too far to the right to be elected?"
REV. PAT ROBERTSON: "Well, we did that -- I didn't do it, but my former campaign manager in Virginia did it with a man named Marshall Coleman. In the primary, she pushed him way over to what amounted to an extreme position in relation to abortion, I mean, very extreme. ..."
COKIE ROBERTS: "What's an extreme position?"
REV. PAT ROBERTSON: "Well, on this one, I mean, there was no exception for anything. I mean, there was no exception for rape or incest or the life of the mother or anything. I mean, it was an absolute ban, a criminalization of abortion."
Isn't Howard Philips the chairman of the Conservative Caucus?
Wasn't he on the ticket for the Constitution Party - which is formerly the US Taxpayers Party ( US Taxpayers Party Changes its Name)?
This 'TCC' orgainization just looks to be a way to smear other conservatives ... and will, in the long run, in no way help you to reach your goals ...
Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee for the 2000 elections.
The connections ...
Howard Phillips, who founded The Conservative Caucus (TCC) at the direction of 33º Mason, Jesse Helms on whose staff he worked. TCC has an interlocking directorate (Phillips served on advisory board) with the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF) of the WACL. Phillips also proposed the name for the Young Americans for Freedom and served on its board of directors.Conclusion: ... Bircher ...
ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"That is untrue. The bill flatly prohibits spending any of the appropriated money on abortions. Period. It says:
"none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion: Provided further, That in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects..."The bill probably WOULD have permitted using the funds to pay for abortions (the Senate version did!) were it not for President Bush's veto threat.
The bill he signed is far from ideal, but it DOES prohibit using the funds to pay for abortions, and it would be a lot worse were it not his efforts. Note that he does not have a "line item veto," and he really needed some of the other items in that bill, so his leverage was limited. He did all that it was possible for him to do to make the bill more pro-life.
-Dave
But who's to say they won't divert the funds to a clinic that WILL perform the abortion? (Haven't read all the replies, so I don't know if this was addressed by sinkspur and _Jim yet.)