The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Rick Santorum”

Rick Santorum’s Theology Trumps Barack Obama’s

President Obama does not miss an opportunity to proclaim his “Christianity” and use that as a basis for why taxes ought to be raised.  And while the Left is comfortable with that, they wither into blithering idiots and truly sick and disgusting sycophants, like Obama, when someone with real values, and real Christian values, like Rick Santorum, dares to use that as a basis for his theology and how he would shape policy and legislation in Washington.

The Arianna Nation calls Santorum’s “religious superiority complex” a “new low”.  Santorum, who is pro-life and who opposes the Obama contraception mandate against Catholic hospitals and institutions, uses his Christianity as the explanation for being pro-life and his conservatism for opposing government intrusion on religion.

Said Santorum:

“He [Obama] is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to.”

Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that go against their moral and religious conviction; Obama using, and abusing, religion, to further his socialist agenda is, to the Arianna Nation, to all liberals and Leftists, somehow a “progressive” position, but Santorum – extolling his Christian values – has reached a “new low”.  How does that make sense?

Said Obama, in a speech at a the National Prayer Breakfast:

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

Phony, counterfeit Christians, like Obama, because he is a liberal and a socialist, always get away with invoking religion and their particular religious values.  And they always get a pass from the MSM.  But when religious frauds, like Obama, invoke religion, it is always done to advance their socialist, and ironically, anti-religious agenda on the American people.  In other words, liberals have no objection with pro-abortion “Christian” politicians – take the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, for example – using religion to justify why contraception ought to be mandated a right by government.  But when Santorum, and others, profess their religion, and their conservative religious values, openly, as the basis for why religious institutions ought to be exempt and protected from government intrusion, they are roundly mocked, viciously satirized and ridiculed, called “ring-wing aggressors” and anti-women.

Of Santorum’s position, The Arianna Nation quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt:

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Don’t buy into his garbage.  The Left hates, despises and loathes religion with a passion, which is why they ridicule Santorum and anyone with conservative religious values, and why they give a pass to counterfeit Christians, like Obama, who use religion in ways that water it down and make it more salable but less meaningful.

There is nothing Christian, or religious, about being pro-abortion.  There is nothing in the Christian Bible, in any Bible, that supports the killing of unborn life.  Neither is there anything religious, Christian or Biblical based about forcing religious institutions to provide contraception and abortion services to anyone against their moral and religious beliefs – and to do so is also unconstitutional.  Nor is there anything in the Christian Bible that supports taxes, and raising taxes on the rich, at such high levels and percentages as Obama and the “Demon-cratic” Party have fought so hard for.  Other than a 10% tithing, to one’s church, or charity, and certainly no more than that amount to government itself, what Obama is professing is not only a lie, but slander against the Bible and Christianity itself.

Why is it that those liberals who profess themselves to be Christian, who despise anyone else invoking their religious values on the American people – especially in the public square -  routinely forget to follow their own rules and freely talk about their religious values and background?  If the Left is that uncomfortable with religion in the public square, and hearing politicians and their election officials talking about religion, why don’t they do more to dissuade and to persecute Obama, and any of their own ilk, who do freely and openly talk about religion, and their so-called religious values?

Whether the Left supports or rejects religion, Rick Santorum not only has a right to discuss, openly and freely, his Christian values, but to, freely and openly, challenge Obama’s “Christian” values.  If the Left has a problem with that, if Obama himself has a problem with that, they and Obama can meet Santorum head on in open debate where they can both lay out their religious differences and defend their brand of Christianity.

But Santorum has nothing to worry about.  His Christianity does trump Obama’s.  Or – does life, and unborn life, really have no meaning and value?  Is enslaving taxpayers to their government by raising taxes sixty, seventy, eighty percent sound, rational Christian teaching?  Is forcing religious institutions to help in the killing of unborn children, or in aiding and abetting sexual immorality, one of the tenets of Christianity, or any religion?

Is Christianity merely a prop politicians use to sway more religious Americans to elect them?  And even if both Obama and Santorum are using Christianity to further their political careers, regardless of that – whose religious values make more sense?

About these ads

So It’s War! And Damn Well About Time – Emily’s List, Pro-Abortion Feminists Will Fall…

Liberal Feminists have had enough, they say, of the assault on “women’s health” and are planning on unleashing a wave of pro-abortion Democrat women, in conjunction with Emily’s List, to run for congress this 2012 election cycle.  Bully for them!  But be warned, you will have some very serious competition, not only from Tea Party candidates (the rumors of their death have been greatly over exaggerated) but solid conservatives like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who owes nobody a contraception speech.

SS columnist, Stephanie Schriock, writing for the Arianna Nation, bellows:

“The ideological attack on women’s health that has taken center stage over the past few weeks makes clear — yet again — that the Republican agenda is incompatible with women’s health and progressive American values.”

Stephanie’s problem, and her real dilemma, is that there is no actual attack on women’s health by Republicans and conservatives.  Women’s health is as protected as ever, and because of the vast improvements in science and medicine, women’s health will continue to improve and women’s lives will be prolonged and saved from untimely death caused by disease and cancer.  So what is it that Stephanie finds so “incompatible”?  What is it that Stephanie is so afraid of losing?  What possible “ideology” do Republicans and conservatives possess which Stephanie and other liberal feminists find repugnant?

Like all liberal feminists, Stephanie is pro-abortion.  And she, like all pro-abortion feminists, is insulted by politicians, male politicians in particular, that would make any attempt to stop women from going into an abortion clinic and killing her unborn child.  Stephanie also is disgusted that conservatives would dare block taxpayer-funded “free” contraception for all women, and even teenage girls, and preteen girls.  And it really riles Stephanie that conservatives would support allowing Catholic and all religious hospitals and its staff an exemption from having to dispense any type of contraception which goes against their moral and religious convictions.

In other words – the “attack” on “women’s health” which Stephanie is concerned about really boils down to abortion, free contraception for all women – paid for by the taxpayer, and forcing religious hospitals to dispense such contraception against their moral objections.  Stephanie is mad as hell that the “right” of women to kill their unborn children is being attacked and she isn’t going to take it any more.

“The latest wave in the onslaught is an amendment by freshman Senator Roy Blunt, which would not only strip women of access to birth control, but completely undermine the notion of health care in this country, giving employers the right to withhold health insurance coverage at will for any employee, for virtually any reason.”

All Roy Blunt’s bill would do is overturn Obama’s unconstitutional meddling by removing the contraception mandate that all religious hospitals be forced, by government, to dispense contraception against their moral convictions.  How does that “undermine the notion of health care in this country”?

“This latest assault shows us clearly that these are no longer isolated battles we are fighting. This is a war — a war it’s time we win by electing more pro-choice, Democratic women to Congress who will stand up for women’s health and the policies women and families need.”

Thank goodness Stephanie has declared the war.  We can take off the gloves now and stop beating around the bush.  What Stephanie has a hard time grasping is that abortion is neither a “women’s right” issue, nor is it a “women’s health” issue.  And the right to abortion neither empowers women nor does it liberate women.  But perhaps the most difficult reality for Stephanie to grasp is that many millions of women oppose abortion and reject her loony tune nonsense about an assault on women’s health and that abortion, and the right to abortion, is in any way connected with “women’s health”.  Abortion is nothing more than the killing of an unborn child.

“Enough is enough. The relentless assault on women’s health by those on the Far Right has caused a furious reaction.”

There’s can be nothing more disturbing than seeing a pack of rabid liberal feminists get there panties in a bunch.  But if it’s in the line of duty, then so be it.  Stephanie and her ilk are in for a political beating that will set their pro-abortion cause back by decades, and, in the course of time, stop them altogether.  They intend to see pro-choice Democrat women elected.  We intend to see pro-life Republican women (and men) elected.

Just because women are running for congress does not make them liberal, pro-abortion feminists.  For example, take a look at Mia Love.  Stephanie is right about one thing – abortion is galvanizing more and more women to run for congress.  However, what Stephanie and her liberal feminist comrades neglected to take into account was that so many of these women running for congressional offices are pro-life Republican women.  How does it make any sense, then, to call what Republicans and conservatives are trying to do by overturning an unconstitutional mandate an “attack” on “women’s health”?

“Our choice is clear. We either elect pro-choice Democratic women to build a future of opportunity for all — and put an end to the non-stop attacks on women’s health — or the Tea Party right wing wins.”

If Stephanie and her pro-abortion agenda wins – millions more babies will be slaughtered in the decades to come.  If Republicans are able to push back, reverse and overturn more of these pro-abortion laws, and elect more pro-life women in the process, we can send a clear message to Stephanie and her feminist friends that they, and their “future of opportunity for all”, is rendered as dead as they would have unborn babies.

“Together, we have the opportunity to not only change the face of Congress, but to ensure that politics won’t deny women the health care they need and deserve.”

Women absolutely “need and deserve” quality heath care.  Abolishing abortion, overturning Obama’s unconstitutional contraception mandate, making women, not taxpayers, pay for their own birth control in no way compromises or endangers women’s health.  What does endanger women’s health are the frivolous games liberal feminists, like Stephanie, are playing with women’s health for the sole purpose of ensuring the “right” to kill an unborn child remains legal and “private”.

Pro-life Republicans or pro-abortion Democrats – who is really trying to “deny women” their health care?

Keep Women Out Of Military Combat Roles, Part 2

Women who can’t, or refuse, to handle nine months of pregnancy, opting for an abortion instead, are the same women who demand to be put on the front lines fighting in extremely dangerous conditions and terrains.  Why would a woman have the audacity to say she can handle military combat, but can’t handle giving birth?  That is what is insulting.

Much debate is circulating over whether to allow women in combat roles and positions, traditionally understood to mean the front lines where the most intense and violent action is occurring, and where the percentage of serious injury and death is very high.  Contrary to Jon Soltz opinion in the Arianna Nation, advocating for women in military combat, when conservatives insist on keeping women out of harms way, it is not done to be insulting, but rather to be as brutally honest as necessary.  Men and women are different.

Writes Soltz:

“The wars we’re fighting are a 360-degree battlefield. There are no real “front lines” anymore. Any time a Soldier or Marine goes outside the wire, they’re in a combat role, whether we say so or not.”

The wars we are fighting now are done so as politically correct as possible – and therein lies the problem as to why so many more thousands of our soldiers have died than otherwise would have under a normal war strategy, and which is why we spent more years in Iraq than was needed.  Remember, it only took three months to topple the Iraqi regime and send Saddam Hussein into hiding.  But because we over emphasized the value of Iraqi citizens to the degree we did, which was never before done in any other war we fought and won, we allowed the Iraqi War to linger when it could have been over much sooner.  Naturally, avoiding civilian casualties is important, but not at the expense of prolonging a war, and not at the expense of allowing the enemy to use our love for human life, and the extreme value we place on it, as a weapon against us – which is what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been doing.  Why do you think they use human shields?  What other purpose is a human shield for?

Soltz continues:

“Additionally, we’re actively attaching women to combat units, right now. In Afghanistan, as part of the counter-insurgency strategy, women go out alongside their male counterparts so certain things can be respectfully done — like making sure Afghan women in any given area are not a threat, and speaking to women to get intelligence information.”

All that is fine during the aftermath of war, after we have won and conquered, subdued and killed the enemy, or vanquished him to parts elsewhere where he is no longer a threat, or capable of once again becoming a threat, to anyone.  Once we are engaged in helping the civilians rebuild their lives, their communities and their country – the peacekeeping aspect – certainly there is a role for women in the military to be on the ground, engaging the women and girls of the society we had to conquer in order to protect and defend our own country, and country’s interests.  Certainly women play a vital role in helping the women and girls there rebuild their shattered lives.  But while the war is yet in progress, women do not belong in combat and civilized societies, knowing and accepting the differences between men and women, do not put their women in harms way, especially to satisfy a political agenda.

Even Israel, which is a civilized society, and the most civilized society in the Middle East, compels its women into service the same as its men.  It might eventually rescind that order once its own population reaches a point where enough men can be enlisted to replace the women.  However, Israel is, and remains, in a unique position – a very dangerous and hostile one at that, where it is surrounded by radical Islamic nations and states which desire to annihilate Israel and kill all its people.  The Muslims who desire this are, and of course, have been, very open about this for decades.  This is why war with Iran and Syria, at least, is right now being hotly discussed and planned.  And because the Israeli population is only around 7 to 8 million, and its entire population, man, woman and child is literally being threatened and provoked on a daily basis by radical Muslim extremists, the state needs to ensure it has all the fighters it can muster.  But once the Middle East is contained, and the radical elements wiped out, and friendship between Israel and its neighbors exists; once the threat of annihilation is removed; once there is real peace in the Middle east – would Israel not opt to eliminate its stance on Israeli women in its military?

America has enough men, and enough of an all male combat force, to do the job as long as, and especially when, we are not fighting an unconventional politically correct war.  Because of our military strength and superiority (a mighty fact liberals cannot abide), and our technological advances in weapons and machinery, we no longer really need to be fighting with as many boots on the ground.  We can fight from a distance, using drones, for example, and satellite images from space to pinpoint our enemies location.  Our aim, and our ability to take out the enemy from far away ranges using a minimal amount of firepower is vastly improving.

But when boots on the ground are needed, it is only when, and because, situations have escalated and become more intense and violent, and men in these tight situations, and close quarters and proximity, are warranted to finish the job at a ranges which cannot be done from afar.  It is not that we worry about women “breaking a nail”, or fussing about their hair”, or any “emotions” that concern us with regards to women in military combat positions – that is liberal hyperbole and liberal nonsense.

Women simply do not possess the physical strength and endurance to keep up, and pace, with men.  And should a female soldier be captured, as was Jessica Lynch (which Soltz notes), because we are a civilized society, because we do value human life, and because we put more emphasis on the lives of women and children, than we do male soldiers, we are always put at a disadvantage when women are being used as hostages and barter by the enemy.  The enemy is keenly aware of this.

Why would we risk prolonging or losing a war, risk more casualties on our side and civilian casualties (women and children) on the enemy’s side, by placing our own women in positions where they risk being captured, and where the enemy knows it can then use these women, our women, as psychological warfare against us and to their diabolical, deeply disturbing advantage?

In other words, if we cannot tolerate the “damsel in distress” scenario, and our enemy knows it; if the enemy knows we will do anything within reason to prevent any harm coming to a captured female soldier, to a greater extent than we would to a captured male soldier, how does giving our combat units such an unnecessary disadvantage help us win the war as quickly, and as humanely, as possible, with the fewest amount of casualties on our side?

Or – do we just leave our captured female soldiers to our enemy, to do with as they please?  And what does that say about us?  And what might they, the enemy, ultimately do to our female soldiers they probably wouldn’t contemplate doing to our male soldiers?  Still want to say men and women aren’t different?

Keep Women Out Of Military Combat Roles

Women either need to have the moral fortitude and courage to realize and accept they simply are unequal to men in certain aspects of human physique and physical endurance – or they need to have that reality reigned down upon them in no uncertain crushing terms.  For the good of our military, for the security of our military, for the good of those women who would want to be on the front lines, America needs to keep them, women, out of combat roles.

There is a selfishness that exists within some women (mostly liberal feminist types) who refuse to understand or care how much danger they are, and would be, putting their male counterparts in should they, women, be included in combat missions.  The risks of these missions are already extreme.  Why would our American military make these missions any more perilous for the units engaged in them by bowing to political correctness?  Neither through God, nor through evolution, are men and women created equal.  Why are women – those specific women who seemingly have no conscience – in their push for “equality” so blindsided by their own arrogance?  It isn’t all women, of course, but why would any woman have so little respect for the military, for all the military does, and must do in order to win and secure peace, they would be willing to jeopardize a combat mission and the lives of the men undertaking the mission?

Women need not stay at home and “knit” and “sew” and do other “women’s work”.  Women can still join the military, and can still be productive and beneficial.  Combat is absolutely not one of those roles, nor should it ever be an option.  Since there are plenty of opportunities for women in the military, and for women to serve in the military honorably, why do women feel they need to dishonor that same military, and themselves, by demanding they be included in combat roles where there is a high likelihood of being killed or captured?  Why do these women have such a lust for putting the men in these front line units in more conflict than they need to be?

It is absolutely predictable the American Left, which has no respect, no regard for the military, demands women be a part of that same military and included equally in combat missions.  Try to figure out the logic in that!  Liberals have nothing but contempt for America’s military and would like nothing better than to hand it, and authority over it, over to the United Nations.  But they demand women be included in the most dangerous aspects of that military they so despise.

It is also predictable that when a Presidential contender, like Rick Santorum, would publicly scorn the idea of women in combat, he would be maligned by the MSM.

Said Santorum in regards to the decision by the Pentagon to open up more roles in the military to women:

“I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,”

The Left picked up on his use of the term “emotions” more than any other part of his speech.  Not a wise choice of words to use.  He ought to clarify himself and show just cause why women do not belong in combat aside from the “emotional” aspect.   If he doesn’t, and the longer he holds off, the more this issue will needlessly hurt him and his chances for winning the Republican nomination.

Combat is so serious a business that only a select few men are even considered for the role.  In other words, there are men in the military who are just as incapable as are women.  Emotionally, psychologically, physically – there are many factors that go into deciding who gets put into combat and who is rejected.  Being a man is not a guarantee you will see combat.  So what are women really being so defensive about, when not even all men are eligible or “emotionally” fit to serve on the front lines?  What are women really trying to accomplish by forcing the military to open up more positions for them in combat roles?

What happens to morale when women are let in, and more of them are seriously maimed in combat, killed – or captured by the enemy and then used as barter?  Isn’t is devastating enough seeing the ravages of war being inflicted upon our male soldiers?  Why do we want to see those same ravages, those same injuries, both physically and psychological, put upon women because we are too willing to give into the madness of political correctness and those women who really have no respect for the military to begin with?  Women in combat roles undermines the missions of these units, and liberals know it.   And it is this deep lack of disrespect for the military which is the real reason why liberals demand women be let into combat roles.

The women, mostly comprised of liberal feminists, who demand to be let into combat positions, are the same women who otherwise hate the military, loathe everything it stands for and hopes to accomplish around the world, and support deep and drastic cuts to defense, which includes downsizing the military.  How does it make sense, then, on the one hand to have so much revulsion for something, to advocate its personnel be drastically downsized, but on the other hand demand more and more women be allowed in, and placed in combat roles?  Where is the logic in having such disgust for something, but wanting to be let into it nonetheless?

The American military is the best in the world, and that fact irritates the hell out of liberals.  They can’t beat the military, unless they gain enough power in Washington to force those deep cuts to our defense.  The American Left is willing to put all our lives and the safety of our country in jeopardy – all to destroy the military they so hate, because it is so big, so powerful and something they, liberals, cannot control.  Think about that.  Why do liberals love big government but hate a big military.   What does big government stand for?  What does a big military stand for?  And what happens when a big military is compromised within by caving to a liberal agenda and radical feminists who can’t stand the fact that men and women are not equal?

Ladies and gentlemen – women are being used as pawns to destroy our military from within and satisfy a liberal agenda.  Pawns, traditionally, are always the first to be deployed in war, and pawns, thus, are always the first to die in war.  Pawns are also expendable, easily replaceable and, in terms of military combat, utterly worthless in human value.

How many women’s lives (being used as pawns) is it worth putting on the front lines with men to satisfy this deviant and malicious liberal agenda?  How many dead women is it worth to bring down our military?

Martha Plimpton Is Wrong About Rick Santorum And Abortion

Martha Plimpton (Think, The Goonies) has publicly criticized Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on his view regarding abortion.  Plimpton, who is pro-abortion, and like all abortion advocates hostile to any intervention into a woman’s right to “privacy”, has challenged Santorum’s perceived intolerance to what she feels is a matter best left between a woman and her doctor.  But as we know, as we ought to know, abortion is not so simply described as the “private medical decision” Plimpton opines.  Abortion is the termination (killing) of a live fetus, which is a human being.  Why on Earth do we want to relegate the killing of unborn human beings to the “privacy” of an abortion clinic room?

There are some “medical decisions” and procedures that are so inhumane, so inhuman, we have a right to be concerned they are taking place in “privacy” (secret) throughout America, and we have an urgent need to ensure these practices are made, and remain, illegal.  What is a human being to Martha Plimpton?  What is the value of being a human being to her?  Why does she not see that an unborn child is a human being?  Hasn’t she seen the sonograms?

Writes Plimpton:

“Mr. Santorum is the one who feels that the private medical decisions made between women and their families and doctors are public property and must be regulated and scrutinized by the government.”

When it comes to killing an unborn child, absolutely our government must “scrutinize” and “regulate”.  Plimpton, also a liberal, would demand our government “scrutinize” and “regulate” everything else in our lives, from the food we eat, to the gas we buy, the cars, clothes, homes, light bulbs, toilet paper and on and on.  But how dare the government take the pro-life position on the killing of an unborn child.

“The policies Mr. Santorum advocates would lead to the investigation and scrutiny of women’s medical decisions about their pregnancies. He seeks to criminalize abortion and to criminally charge doctors for performing them.”

The “policies” which Santorum “advocates” would prevent the unnecessary killings of millions of unborn children.  That’s rather impressive.  It cannot be said enough that the more we as a society allow, accept, condone, or are otherwise apathetic to, policies which undermine a respect for life, the more we degenerate into an animalistic society devoid and bankrupt of any values.

We have seen how societies of people without any values, without any concern for anyone or anything, such as the OWS protesters, live their hunter-gatherer lives, how they invade the sanctity of private space and land, squat on it and claim it as their own; a total disregard for the people who regularly use this space for business and pleasure, and how they leave an area after they are through slashing and burning it.  Someone can challenge it, but every last one of these protesters it can be certain is pro-abortion.  They have no respect for the people living, and making a living, in and around the areas they commandeered for their protests, why would they have any respect for, or put any value on, the lives of the unborn.  And – it was pro-abortion liberals who supported them throughout.  Conservatives, overwhelmingly pro-life, remained staunchly opposed to their shenanigans.

The point being – this is what America is headed for the more we devalue human life.  Societies without morals and standards, as represented by the OWS protesters, which do not emphasize a respect for human life, will devolve into the same deplorable mannerisms as the OWS protesters, begging for food, using any open space available to urinate and defecate and dump their trash.

Plimpton continues:

“How much more invasive can one get? How much bigger does the government need to be to be a presence in the examination room of every pregnant woman in the country?”

She says this, and yet is there any doubt she supports Obamacare, which is big government; which is invasive; which is a “presence in the examination room” of not just “every pregnant woman”, but everyone in the country, man, woman and child.

“If Mr. Santorum seeks to police women’s reproductive lives, he must expect to be subject to the same irrational, intrusive, embarrassing and degrading inquisition he intends to force on the rest of America.”

There is a gross misconception that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman.  That being pro-life stems from a sinister desire to control women’s lives, to keep them “barefoot and pregnant”.  But this is pro-abortion propaganda.  Women ought to be grateful, not resentful, for the pro-life movement.  Women ought to celebrate the pro-life movement, not condemn it.  Women ought to realize that to be pro-life is to be pro-woman, not the opposite.  It is NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood which have no respect for women.  It is pro-abortion organizations like them who see pregnant women not as mothers to be but as cash cows.

Being pro-life means we have a deep and profound respect for human life, including the untold millions of female children slaughtered in the womb every year around the world, intentionally, and because they are female.  The pro-life movement opposes abortion as a means of sex selection.  The pro-abortion movement embraces it.  Which side, then, is really on the pro-woman side?  That the pro-life movement would seek to prevent a woman from having an abortion in no way devalues the life and worth of the woman.  We place a high value on human life; we do everything we can to preserve, to save, to prolong life, from the moment of conception through the end of life and even into death and by respecting the right of the dead to rest in peace.  The same people who are pro-abortion also support harvesting human organs and other body parts, and using the dead for scientific research without their prior written consent or authorization.

Plimpton’s tirade against Rick Santorum is woeful indeed.  Would Plimpton support federal law mandating all hospitals and all medical staff perform abortions against their religious or moral convictions?  Is that not invasion of “privacy” also?  Is that not “big government” being a “presence” in every hospital in America?

Or is government only “big” and “invasive” in her eyes when it seeks to stop the killing of unborn children, but not when it seeks to control any other aspect of our lives, including those guaranteed under the Constitution?

Jesus Will Vote For Mitt Romney (Or The Republican Nominee) Part 2

UPDATEJohn Bolton Supports Mitt Romney also.

Liberals, who are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, have got it in mind that Jesus also is pro-abortion.  Where this scandalous and ridiculous notion came from is anyone’s guess.  Jesus was very much pro-life and never would have condoned abortion as a means of “family planning”.  Nor would Jesus have allowed himself, or his followers, to give up so easily, so readily on women and girls faced with the tough decision of whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, carry the child all the way through, give birth and then give the child up for adoption, thereby giving the child a chance, an opportunity to live, to exist, to grow up and grow into a productive member of society – or to simply kill the unborn child and discard it as trash or flush it away like human waste.  Jesus never advocated, nor would he ever have, killing unborn children.

Too many Christians have fallen prey to liberalism’s intentionally destructive mantra that the unborn child would be better off dead and whisked off to Heaven forthwith, into the arms of an awaiting and loving Jesus rather than be given the chance to coexist outside the womb in harsher, more unpredictable and unstable environments than we have come to expect Heaven would contain.  How can any intelligent individual, with a straight face, actually believe, accept, be and find comfort in, such malevolent nonsense?  Jesus would have preached courage to a pregnant woman or girl, even faced with hardship.  Of course, in Jesus’ day there was more emphasis on extended family and community than there is today.  That would have given the child a slight edge than we have in today’s society.

Still, there is the alternative of adoption.  There are organizations which can and will take over responsibility for a child which cannot be cared for by its mother.  Why is this the less convenient route for a woman to take?  There is nothing pro-Christian or pro-life about abortion.  Liberals, who have infiltrated and co-opted Christianity have weakened it dramatically by influencing and manipulating its teachings, distorting the words of Jesus and twisting what he said into something that fits snugly into their unholy agenda.

One cannot be a liberal and a Christian.  And yet, millions of liberals profess themselves to be Christians.  It is a facade and a charade, a trap, one in which liberalism itself has found a way to brainwash wandering Christians into falling into, or one for which Christians themselves, of their own free will, have sacrificed themselves.  Obviously there have been many failings and false teachings within Christianity in its past, and many faithful Christians have not been able to resolve those stains.  We can talk of slavery, poverty, class distinction, healthcare, and all the repulsive ways in which the “haves” have mistreated the “have-nots” over the course of human history, and even throughout the history of America.  However, the question still remains – how does giving into another false teaching, such as abortion, rectify and resolve the failings of past Christian teachings?  It doesn’t, and it never will.

What is a Christian’s motivation for being pro-abortion?  What does a Christian gain by promoting, and being tolerant of, apathetic and indifferent to, a practice that kills unborn children?

It is very daring, indeed, for one to be so brazen to call their self a Christian and to support abortion on demand.  What happened to them over the course of their life that they abandoned rationality for insanity?  Obviously Christianity failed them somewhere, or someone was able to get to them, get into their mind and convince them being pro-abortion is Christian.  Either that, or there are millions of people going around professing to be Christian but in actuality are playing a part; millions of people who are in reality liberal atheists, pretending to be Christians in an effort to weaken Christianity.

There is, after-all, a Christian pretender in the White House.  President Obama who, may or may not be a Muslim, who, at least might have once been a Muslim in his past, now is a socialist.  And as someone who supports abortion on demand, he is certainly no Christian.  It is liberalism and socialism which states there is no worth, no value, no humanness in unborn children.  If Obama really were a Christian he would not take this or any pro-abortion position.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to distance himself from the filth and muck that is Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other pro-abortion organization out there.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to denounce them, to fight against them, to crush them.  If Obama really were a Christian, he would be a Republican.

That Obama is a Democrat, is pro-abortion, is a socialist, does support abortion on demand, makes him an anti-Christian, a counterfeit Christian and a coward.

All the Republican nominees for President are pro-life.  Jesus is pro-life.  Christianity is pro-life, regardless of the deceit and underhandedness which has manifested and infested itself within Christianity by devilish liberals whose only purpose is to undermine Christianity for their own selfish and arrogant, and very dangerous, purpose.

As Jesus is pro-life, and Obama is pro-abortion, and Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and every other Republican contender for the Presidency is pro-life, whoever the republican nominee is who goes up against Obama, who can we be absolutely certain Jesus will be voting for in this upcoming 2012 election?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: