Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Thursday, January 5, 2012

When Principles Are As Important As Political Gain

Rick Santorum represents everything that's right with faith-based leadership.
Sadly, the political process shows us what's wrong with America.

With just five days until the New Hampshire primaries, Rick Santorum has his work cut out for him.  

And if the stress of running for a presidential nomination weren't grueling enough, Santorum's refusal to compromise on his values has unleashed a firestorm of criticism from the mainstream media that is sure to cast doubt within the ranks of an uninformed electorate.

There will be no shortage of political commentary in the days leading up to the NH primary.  My interest in Santorum -- and what I hope will be your interest as well -- is Santorum's ability to be competitive on a national stage after losing his last race for his Senate seat in 2007.

In the Senate, Santorum became known for his social conservatism. He led efforts to ban late-term abortions and led the unsuccessful GOP fight in 2005 to keep Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who was diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, attached to life-preserving medical equipment.

He derided a 2003 Supreme Court decision that declared a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, saying, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

Santorum's stances earned him a solid following among religious conservatives and a spot on Time magazine's 25 most influential evangelists list in 2005.

It also earned him the enmity of many Democrats, women's groups, abortion rights advocates and gay rights supporters, who disliked Santorum's faith-based stance.

Knowing this, most candidates would have moderated their message, and tailored their political stance to the polls.  Santorum's campaign staff urged him on many occasions to do just that, or risk the election.  He refused to compromise his values and ended up losing the Senatorial election for that very reason.

Does that make him politically naive, and unworthy to guide the United States as President?  Or does that make him the perfect candidate for a nation that is becoming increasingly morally bankrupt, and unable to maintain a conviction separate from the most recent public opinion poll?

He is the champion of the average guy -- the forgotten American -- who pays his taxes, fights for freedom and doesn't expect a handout.

He realizes that it isn't only the threat of Jihadism from abroad that threatens our nation, but an internal loss of confidence, an unwillingness to recognize and defend the exceptional nature of this country.

Though he lost at the ballot box in his last electoral attempt, he did not stop beating the drum for fiscal reform and a strong defense for the nation. He is a stalwart advocate of traditional American principles and has not wavered on these matters the balance of the current GOP contenders have done -- many times -- over the years.

Win or lose, private or public sector, Santorum's principles and values have remained steadfast and unshakable.  When did that become a character liability for an individual running for President?

As I was reading a story on the New Hampshire primary this morning on CNN, the following statement jumped out at me.  "The general electorate is now seeing the stark divisions within the GOP up close and personal," says Brown University political scientist Wendy Schiller. "Libertarian, social conservative, and fiscal conservative. Will the real GOP stand up?"

That's telling in and of itself.  The Republican Party has lost its self-identity, and those who support the party are at a crossroads.  It's my opinion that the party will be defined by our choice in 2012 for many years to come, and the thought that "Faith, Family and Freedom" are values outside the mainstream is a chilling proposition.

Thankfully, faith-based conservatives are finally catching on to the Santorum message.  As reported on Fox News this morning, Santorum, who finished just eight votes behind Romney in Tuesday's caucuses, has already seen a surge of online donations, enough to cripple his campaign's website shortly after the Iowa results were announced.

I encourage everyone interested in the political process -- who believes values still have a place in our political process -- to research Rick Santorum and consider supporting the only candidate who has not waivered in his beliefs.

Win or lose, I don't believe we can ever do the "wrong thing" by voting for the "right person."

Rick Santorum for President
P.O. Box 37
Verona, PA 15147
Phone: (888) 321-6675
Email:  info@ricksantorum.com

I truly believe 2012 is going to be an awesome year for all God's children.  With your help, our combined efforts can, and will, be successful for our Lord.  Thank you, and God Bless you!

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Ron Paul Opposes Abortion ... Just Kidding.

In the twisted mind of Ron Paul, a State's rights trump "Right To Life."

Behold, children are a Blessing from the LORD, 
The fruit of the womb is a reward.  (Psalm 127:3)

I hope everyone will be watching the Iowa Caucuses tonight.  Closely.  In particular, pay careful attention to Ron Paul's performance.
 
Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are in a virtual tie for first place.  Anything can happen with 41% of the Iowa voters undecided, of course, but this Ron Paul trend is scary.


Battling Rick Santorum for the "pro-life" credential, Paul has managed to twist the truth as only his twisted mind could.  In the process, voters are being misled.


What you will hear is Ron Paul telling his constituents that he is a "pro-life" medical professional that wants to de-fund Planned Parenthood and reverse the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade.  He also touts the fact that he signed the
Personhood USA Pledge.

What you will
not hear is Ron Paul's argument that the protections afforded to unborn children under the 14th Amendment -- by virtue of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which Ron Paul voted against -- are trumped by the 10th Amendment, which establishes a state's right to exert authority over the federal government.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

It was signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004.

In short, Ron Paul supports the concept of a ban on abortion, but thinks that states should be left to decide whether or not they want to enforce that federal ban.


"
I support a ban on abortion except when I don't support a ban on abortion."  What a wonderful example of morals and ethics Ron Paul presents to the American people.


In signing the Personhood USA pledge, which calls for Fourteenth Amendment protections for the unborn, Paul included a statement saying the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says nobody should be deprived of life without due process -- should not "cancel out the Tenth Amendment," which pertains to states' rights.

Prior to enactment of the federal law, the "child in utero" was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the "child in utero," no homicide was recognized, in most cases.

According to Fox News, Paul warned in that statement about a "federal police force" on the issue, or the possibility of a "Federal Department of Abortion."

Asked to clarify the position, Paul told the group he believes the federal government should "define life" as beginning at conception, and then leave it up to the states to determine enforcement.

Personhood USA later said it had "serious concerns" about Paul's "inconsistencies" on the issue.
Personhood USA President Keith Mason told Fox News on Tuesday that Paul's stance is "a little bizarre."

A little bizarre?  When I looked up the word "bizarre" in the dictionary it said:  see Ron Paul.

Pay careful attention this evening to the results of the Iowa Caucus.  If Ron Paul places in the top 3, which he mostly will, he'll carry his twisted momentum to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.  If you live in one of those fine states, don't be duped by his Libertarian message.

The Devil is in the details.