Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.
National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:
-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."
-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."
The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.
"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."
The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:
-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."
-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.
-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.
-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.
"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.
Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."
Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.
I can’t think of anything Newt did against those issues in particular.
I know for certainty that Romney is totally on the wrong side.
Maybe he paid them off? He seems to pay money to those who endorse him.
“God forgives divorces but NEVER KILLING OF helpless babies.”
God can forgive even that, because of the crucified Jesus. Many women have had blood on their hands because of abortion, to be forgiven and cleansed because of His.
“Satan is the master of lies. Mitt is plain evil.”
Spot-on. The devil has TWO candidates running this time.
The definition of CORRUPTION.
Sorry, when one deliberately seeks after a candidate who is evil and supports it for this nation - it’s not like a personal sin. His PRO HOMO stance and all the rest - he is evil, they chose evil and not goodness.
They aren’t under His protection because anyone who is His is repulsed at evil. He has no obligation to them, they belong to another. Life or death, choose life. There is death to this country to. There was only one candidate who would bring life to this country and evil lied about him from every side and set it up to keep him from rising and some were glad to see him fall and continue to lie about him.
Yes, satan has his two minions and he is hell bent to sit in our WH and destroy our nation for sure. Either way he wants in. As we know, satan has come to kill/rob/destroy. And he has two who are more than ready to oblige him in that. Pretty pathetic when some are saying he could be good. Total clueless - it’s no wonder they are so easily duped, they don’t even know evil when they see it’s actions.
Sorry, when one deliberately seeks after a candidate who is evil and supports it for this nation - it’s not like a personal sin. His PRO HOMO stance and all the rest - he is evil, they chose evil and not goodness.
They aren’t under His protection because anyone who is His is repulsed at evil. He has no obligation to them, they belong to another. Life or death, choose life. There is death to this country to. There was only one candidate who would bring life to this country and evil lied about him from every side and set it up to keep him from rising and some were glad to see him fall and continue to lie about him.
Yes, satan has his two minions and he is hell bent to sit in our WH and destroy our nation for sure. Either way he wants in. As we know, satan has come to kill/rob/destroy. And he has two who are more than ready to oblige him in that. Pretty pathetic when some are saying he could be good. Total clueless - it’s no wonder they are so easily duped, they don’t even know evil when they see it’s actions. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..”.
230 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 14:43:51 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Nobama_ever: “Lol. Agreed, but at the time, Carter was seen as a better representation of Christian principles to evangelical groups because Reagan was divorced! Now we all know it’s a farce to think Carter was more religious...he’s an anti-semite and hardly a decent man!”
Like many liberals, Jimmy Carter's views have gotten worse over the years.
I don't know for sure whether Carter supported homosexual marriage during the 1976 election, but if he did, he certainly didn't talk about it and the millions of evangelicals who voted for him as the “Christian candidate” running against Gerald Ford didn't know that. Certainly there were warning signs with Carter, but nothing that extreme or that obvious.
The time between the 1976 and 1980 elections is generally considered a watershed for traditional Southern Democrats, when evangelicals realized that it's important to vote according to Christian principles and that casting their votes for a professing born-again believer wasn't always the best way to exercise those principles.
259 posted on Sat Apr 14 2012 00:08:54 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Mariner: “SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks. I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise. We'll see if they're wrong. I don't think they are. SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.”
You may be right.
The national media after the 2010 election spent a lot of time talking about how the conservative movement's “foot soldiers” were no longer Christian conservatives but rather secular conservative Tea Partiers. Obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two groups, but they're not identical and there are important differences in their emphasis.
To get someone like Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee indicates a triumph of the economic conservative wing of the Republican Party over the social conservatives. I think that is a very, very bad thing.
Sorry, I’m not a huge Palin fan anywise, so just because she - as a Party player - has to mouth confidences about Romney doesn’t mean I have to give any credence to them.
My my, K58, aren't you a tiresome, arrogant little twit?
Your attitude is that of the GOP-E - "How dare you disagree, don't you realise who I am?"
Yeah, I know who you are. You're part of the problem. You're part of the tottering, sell-out, go-along-to-get-along crowd who has gotten us to where we're at today. The crowd who needs to be retired - forcibly, if they will not do so voluntarily - are replaced by people who actually know what conservatism is and will fight for it.
You're raising a really important question. I may need to clarify here.
I believe economic conservatives, national defense conservatives, and social issues conservatives differ mostly in emphasis. It's a difference of degree, not of basic kinds.
I happen to consider myself in all three categories. In addition to being an evangelical Christian, I live and work outside Fort Leonard Wood where I moved after 9/11 to take a (civilian) job in Army Public Affairs, so I'm obviously a strong supporter of the military. While I'm not terribly interested in the nuts-and-bolts of fiscal policy, I own a business and I believe socialism is unbiblical because it is a form of state-sanctioned theft, so I'm an economic conservative as well though I don't usually describe myself in those terms.
I can think of lots of people who are trained economists in academia or government who know far more than me about fiscal policy, as well as lots of successful small and large business owners, for whom economic conservative issues are front-and-center on their priority list. Does that mean they're socially liberal? Not necessarily, and in this community, often they're conservative evangelicals or retired military personnel for whom national defense issues are extremely important.
I think a lot of Newt Gingrich supporters were primarily concerned about economic conservative issues or national defense issues. I think that concern was undergirding a lot of the objections to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as to George Bush's “compassionate conservative” emphasis.
I can respect that. I draw the line when somebody starts sounding like a libertarian whose focus is on free enterprise and wants a values-free form of conservatism.
As I've said a number of times over the last couple of days, Sodom and Gomorrah were doing well economically, too:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2013:10-15&version=KJV
Look what happened to them as a result of wickedness. Lot was the “economic conservative” of his day who chose the well-watered cities of the plain; Abram (later Abraham) was left with the dry pastures of the hills but the blessings of God, which in the long run were far more important. Lot had to be rescued twice, and ended his days living in abject poverty with his only progeny being the fruit of incest.
Those who seek the blessings of God without wanting to worship God end with neither.
I have actually been PERSONNALLY involved in the defeat of over 30 different “RINO” Republicans in the Primary.
I actually recruited many of those conservative candidates myself.
You are very, very immature, as is evidenced by your posts. Everyone who disagrees with YOU is branded a “liberal” or a “Rino” or part of the “GOP-E” -—
If is very easy for me to make negative statements about you, as it is very clear to anyone with any real experience that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not know how to strategize or WIN!
Yeah, I know who you are. You're part of the problem. You're part of the tottering, sell-out, go-along-to-get-along crowd who has gotten us to where we're at today. The crowd who needs to be retired - forcibly, if they will not do so voluntarily - are replaced by people who actually know what conservatism is and will fight for it.
*********************************
Exactly right. Well said, Yashcheritsiy.
************************************
Agreed. I hate to accuse someone of lying about being pro-life, but I fear that Romney has claimed that belief for purely expedient reasons. Someone posted a picture of Romney and his family yesterday or the day before, if I recall correctly, and the implication was that this was evidence that Romney is pro-life. But is it? I am unconvinced. His political record says not.
LOL
You are BOTH delusional!
You are both very egotistical, as well!
There are countless conservatives who have the scars to prove their battles with entrenched liberal Republicans over the years.
For Heaven’s sake, many of us have made national news fighting with Governors and other elected officials, over the Republican Platform and other issues.
You demand that we all agree, 100%, with YOU or you will then try to lump US in with those we, ourselves, have been fighting for decades?
You will NEVER win anything by being such anti-social, insulting, politically immature, disrespectful and ungrateful hot heads.
I do not expect you to agree with me on everything.
However, the reason you find yourselves marginalized (And you ARE marginalized, even though you do not realize it) Is that you are not capable, it seems, of learning one simple rule:
Politics is about ATTRACTING support for your cause!
Your rants and your statements REPELL people. You seem to think politics, or what you seem to think of as your particular brand of “conservative” pollitics is your own little Sorority and that you have the right to kick people out.
YOU have become your own little “elite” and you clearly think that you are far to pure to allow anyone else to join your little, (very very little) clique!
You got all that from my few posts and then call me delusional? What a joke.
Yes, I do.
But I did say “both” -— when you agree with hot heads, as you have done, you take responsibility for what those hot heads say!
You also, yourself, did make some religious comments about Romney, which IMHO are out of bounds and do work to REPEL people from the conservative cause.
Yawn. You want a medal or something?
People like you are the ones we need to replace. Not because you yourself are a liberal or a RINO, but because you're an enabler.
Sorry if I'm not as "experienced" at playing the political games you enjoy. That's because the sort of political games you enjoy make me sick to my stomach because of how ultimately futile and defiling they are.
We will win without you, and we'll win without Romney.
Ah, but you see? According to some on here, if you actually want conservative candidates instead of spineless lying RINOs, then you're arrogant and inexperienced and don't know how to win.
See, if you want to learn to play the game like a pro, then you're going to have drop all this junk about "principles" and stuff. You're going to have to learn to scratch backs and trade favours and smoke cigars in the back room with the other politicos. If that means going along with smokescreens like "Romney is pro-life," then so be it. If you want to get anywhere in politics and be a big-shot player, then you're going to have to start learning to do what's best for the country Republican Party leadership caste.
If politics is the art of violating core principles, then I pray never to be a politician, and I pray there always be true conservatives someplace.
Let me repeat, though, because I don’t think you have actually heard what is being said:
“Romney is not a conservative at all.”
So, it is not a matter of compromise....there no foundation to begin with in the first place. He is not one of us.
****************************
Produce those quotes. I'd like to see them.
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.