CINOs not thrilled with Rick Santorum
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoRka8j3HYE&list=UUsUgCCaaOfESPA4REUfZ33g&index=4&feature=plcp[/youtube]
Perhaps sensing that some of the “Catholic political initiative” is being seized by Santorum and the traditional Catholic crowd, the “Catholic in Name Only” political group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good came out yesterday with their voters guide which is little else than their continual blather of social engineering designed to confuse and twist Catholic voters’ minds into voting for Obama.
Case in point: they are more concerned about the immorality of unemployment than the immorality of murdering children in the womb by the millions.
‘Nuf said.
They fail to recognize the very real connection between killing 60 million of your fellow countrymen AND consumers and the resulting economic downturn.
~ Michael Voris, Real Catholic TV, March 1
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Catholics in name only not thrilled with Rick Santorum”
:) You think? If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were shooting for “understatement of the year” award, Jill!
It’s a genuine hall-mark of a faithful Christian candidate (or anyone) who threatens the sacred (note the irony) cows of the Culture of Death: even the purely political criticisms of them made by the abortion-tolerant and/or “pro-life-is-a-nice-hobby-but-let’s-worry-about-important-things-like-the-economy” crowd pick up a specially pungent flavour of vinegar and gall, which candidates who are Catholics-In-Name-Only (or any other Christians-In-Name-Only or Pro-Lifers-In-Name-Only) simply don’t attract. It’s almost mesmerising, how otherwise bland commenters can turn rabid in such cases.
While I agree with much of what Voris says here, his analysis of the Michigan primary doesn’t ring true for me. I’ve read that many of the Santorum votes came from Democrats that were voting in the Republican primary. Santorum even apparently sent out robo calls to Democrats urging them to vote. I’m not sure why Voris chose to ignore that.
The Democratic crossover vote in Michigan (or ‘Operation Hilarity’ as they like to call it) really wasn’t that significant compared to four years ago. It generated lots of hype before the actual polls, but didn’t live up to it. The controversial robocalls didn’t make much of a difference either. Democratic voters in Michigan probably turned to Santorum because they actually like his strong pro-life stance and more moderate fiscal policies, not because of an organized attempt to cause chaos in the nominating convention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/operation-hilarity-fizzles/2012/02/28/gIQAsGHKhR_blog.html
test
you cant be catholic and pro death!
Thanks for the link Navi. So Voris’ extrapolation of the numbers still looks off to me. It seems to me that if he was going to remove Romney votes from absentee voters, he should have removed Democrat votes from Santorum’s total too. Voris is showing that the voting that took place on the day of the primary actually has Santorum winning “handily”. But it might have been a wash if he’d removed Democrat votes. I don’t really care either way, it just seems odd that Voris would completely ignore the votes of the Democrats.
Paladin! Awesome, may I repeat?
“pro-life-is-a-nice-hobby-but-let’s-worry-about-important-things-like-the-economy” crowd
I think they’re the same crowd who thinks “religion is cute and quaint if you only have ceremonies and rituals inside your church but please don’t act like you believe that stuff all week long!!!”
Lrning: While I agree with much of what Voris says here, his analysis of the Michigan primary doesn’t ring true for me. I’ve read that many of the Santorum votes came from Democrats that were voting in the Republican primary. Santorum even apparently sent out robo calls to Democrats urging them to vote. I’m not sure why Voris chose to ignore that.
What I saw was that 83% of Democratic votes were for Santorum, and that Democratic organizations themselves were calling, trying to drum up votes for Santorum.
Ninek: “pro-life-is-a-nice-hobby-but-let’s-worry-about-important-things-like-the-economy” crowd.
Well, it is important, it’s way, way important. I’m Pro-Choice but would vote for a candidate even if they were against legal abortion, if I thought they had a meaningful plan for substantially cutting the federal gov’t’s budget deficit and the will to do it.
It is interesting that Democrats seem to believe Romney is more electable than Santorum.
:) Ninek, you can repeat it, but only if I have permission to quote your last sentence!
Doug: well… again, if you don’t believe that unborn children are actually children (and are, instead, relegated to the rank/importance of, say, warts or polyps–cumbersome to remove, but fully within the rights of the person who has them to remove them), then I could see how you’d believe as you do.
For those of us who believe that a child is murdered with every abortion, there really is a two-fold road-block to “preferring the economy”:
1) The direct murder of a human child is always more of a grave crime than would be the most gross financial mis-management (which can be done out of greed or incompetence, etc., but which is usually not done for the express purpose of making sure that children die); it would not be right to slit the throat of a 5-year-old girl, even if the economy could be magically and permanently made perfect (whatever that means).
2) Those who see the murders of millions of children often do (and very sensibly) ask the basic question, at least in their heads: for what purpose is a “good economy”? Is it not for the purpose of helping human persons? What point has that, if human persons are murdered for the sake of it? Frankly, a nation which murders its children does not DESERVE a good economy.
Del wrote:
It is interesting that Democrats seem to believe Romney is more electable than Santorum.
That, or they believe that the narrative after a “post-Romney-win Primary” could be: “The only reason you Democrats preferred Romney was because he was most like Obama; why settle for a cheap, untested counterfeit who is not quite committed to the secular sacrament of abortion? Now that the difference between the opposition and the leader has been largely neutralised, let’s get to the rigourous business of destroying Romney!”
I think Democrats find Romney an acceptable alternative to Obama. Santorum would be their worst nightmare.
Santorum has them there leadership abilities and people see it.
He doesn’t need the main-minion-media to call him “a rock star” 19 times this year to boost his lack of accomplishment like B.O. Bazinga!
I’ve seen enough episodes of competetive reality shows to see that the Dems think Romney is easier to beat than Santorum so they want him, to try and beat him. “Eww, Romney is one of those ugly rich folks who keep you down” will most likely be their tac.
Oh, now it’s 60 million? I love how the “death toll” number just bounces around randomly day-by-day. Sometimes it’s 50 million, sometimes it’s 30 million, sometimes it’s 100+ million.
Paladin, steal away!
And yes, abortion is a matter of life and death. Children need things. Parents buy those things. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect those dots. BUT, if you are running a socialist nanny state, children are fodder for the abortionists because they cost too much money at first if you let them live.
Socialists are too blind to see the value of them in the near future when they grow up. Socialists and communists aren’t keen on the word “investment”.
The only thing that prospers under socialist and communist regimes is: the black market.
joan says:
Oh, now it’s 60 million? I love how the “death toll” number just bounces around randomly day-by-day. Sometimes it’s 50 million, sometimes it’s 30 million, sometimes it’s 100+ million.
So true. That’s what happens when we have to estimate the number of abortions because abortion providers are not required to report the actual numbers. You should take your complaint to the CDC.
Those who see the murders of millions of children often do (and very sensibly) ask the basic question, at least in their heads: for what purpose is a “good economy”? Is it not for the purpose of helping human persons? What point has that, if human persons are murdered for the sake of it? Frankly, a nation which murders its children does not DESERVE a good economy.
Paladin, good post, and per your beliefs that certainly makes sense. Overall, I’d say a “good economy” is one that does the best for the highest percentage of people, rather the same thing as the “least suffering,” in general. How to achieve that is a tough question – some look to a socialist or communist model, but in practice capitalism works out better, though it’s a limited capitalism. Without the limitations, it ends up with a very few super-rich and almost all the rest as virtual or literal serfs. A hard thing to fine-tune.
Leticia: I think Democrats find Romney an acceptable alternative to Obama. Santorum would be their worst nightmare.
Probably true (for many, anyway), although if they want another term for Obama then Santorum is greatly preferable as an opponent. And the same thing is the case for many Republicans. They don’t want Santorum as the President. He’s a big “pork-barrel” guy, etc. Although, if beating Obama is the main deal for Republicans, then Romney’s vastly preferable to Santorum.
Del: It is interesting that Democrats seem to believe Romney is more electable than Santorum.
“Interesting”? The same is true for Republicans.
I’ve seen enough episodes of competetive reality shows to see that the Dems think Romney is easier to beat than Santorum so they want him, to try and beat him. “Eww, Romney is one of those ugly rich folks who keep you down” will most likely be their tac.
Ninek, that’s not what most Democrats think. In the popular vote totals, Gingrich (and of course Romney) are ahead of Santorum. Heck – the lastest Rasmussen tracking poll has Ron Paul (and of course Romney) as being more likely to beat Obama than Santorum.
Most Democrats are sheeple.
“they are more concerned about the immorality of unemployment than the immorality of murdering children in the womb by the millions.”
Ya think. Unemployment affects the post-born. In other words, real time. Abortion is not a societal issue unless society has a right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. And it doesn’t.
Your fetus fetishist fellow, Santorum, is sinking in the polls because the more moderate and less religiously fanatical Republicans (old school – think Philly suburb types) think he’s a crazed, Catholic fetus worshipping, woman hating zealot. Reality bites, don’t it.
cc, if you continue to spend so much time on this website, mothers in Rhode Island will continue to miss their abortion appointments. Your distraction is costing er I mean SAVING valuable lives!
I’ve already met one Rhode Island mom this week who is on her SECOND child. Cc, how could you let this happen? Don’t you know how expensive and bothersome children are? How can you abandon your post like this? I’m telling Cecile and she’s going to revoke your green vest and bar you from the post-abortive cookie jar in the back of the clinic.
I agree that a woman can do what she wants with her body. But when my mom was pregnant with me, she didn’t have any right to do what she wanted with MY body.
Also, don’t accuse Reality of biting. His comments may be snarky at times, but biting? That’s a little harsh.
My favorite news item during the last calendar year was when a poll revealed that “generic Republican candidate” scored higher than Obama. LOL!!
Gosh, that editing thing expires so quickly! I don’t mean to make multiple comments but I wanted to say this to cc:
Parents who keep their children and parents who adopt children very frequently buy food, clothing, and pay for shelter for them. I’d say they purchase these items often enough to make an economical impact. One of the reasons we had such post-WWII prosperity was the Baby Boom. You know what that is, because you’re an early Baby Boomer (I was born toward the end of the Baby Boom). Private schools, grade schools, prep schools, trade schools, colleges, universities: they ALL benefit from children because children grow very quickly and become students. Sure, some parents are neglectful or even harmful, and if they break the law, they need to be held accountable.
But, cc, isn’t it insulting to women to assume that if they have sex for recreation rather than procreation, their children are apt to be criminals? What is it about recreational sex that makes you and your friends think that it produces criminals? I say that because you’ve made multiple comments to the effect that abortion keeps the jails less full. Really? Does that mean that you think sex for procreation produces better human beings? Just wondering, because telling women that casual sex breeds criminals is kind of insulting and maybe just a teensy bit anti-female. Dontcha think? Amirite?
OK, last comment I promise:
cc often calls us ‘fetus fetishists’ or ‘fetus worshippers.’ Yes, we worship the Fetus Jesus, but also the Infant Jesus, the Child Jesus, and the Adult Jesus. We could just shorten to it Jesus Worshippers. That would simplify things.
I could say that feminists are “Vagina Fetishists” because you think health care doesn’t include brains, lungs, blood vessels, internal organs, skin, or anything else. Where’s the cry for free insulin? Not as important as pills and iuds? Really? Diabetics can die if they can’t get their insulin prescriptions, but I’ve never seen a woman die for lack of condoms. Once in college, though, I did hear a guy say that he’d die without sex. Meh. He was wrong. He survived.
ninek, its my opinion that “generic Republican candidate” has the potential to be the best president ever. If not the best, certainly better than Obama. But that’s not saying much.
Ninek…your last comment at 7:55pm made me LOL! ;)
CC,
It’s beyond hilarious that anyone who is against the contraception, Ella, sterlization mandate is called a woman hater in your circles.
Not surprising tho.
If every woman who is against this mandate went to their pharmacy and bought the Pill, the nationwide shortage created could make history. Is that what the Dems want? Watch what happens…
siiiiigh cc and her abortion clinic fetish her suction machine fetish and her curette fetish…oh havent you heard? prisons are filling up and packed to the hilt. now more ever then before most offenders are women. so much for abortion fixing that one. id like you to name one problem abortion has solved. you have yet to do so. cc you are 63 years old. are you aware that a woman your age is ready to be put out to pasture according to many folks? its usually a liberal thing. just thought id mention it since you dont want babies to see their first birthdays. just remember… the glue factory awaits;/
Tough love they call it! I’ve seen criticism of those of us who don’t use sugar and spice. But read CS Lewis, for one example. He and his friends exchanged some pointed and witty barbs, but in the end Lewis capitulated. I do it out of love, cc. You abortion advocates don’t want to go to hell, believe me: I’ve heard its worse than the DMV.
Santorum has got my vote if for no other reason then his amazing wife Karen
ninek roflol @ your joke. yeah pro aborts as hard as cc need tough love. being too nice teaches them little. i hated to remind cc that to a lot of people her life is worth nothing. just like the babies she fights to murder every day. i still wish cc would embrace life!
tough love got to me. and my 82 year old mother warned me about getting older. she said ” honey when ya get older they ( guess she meant society) dont want ya anymore.”
CC: Your fetus fetishist fellow, Santorum, is sinking in the polls because the more moderate and less religiously fanatical Republicans (old school – think Philly suburb types) think he’s a crazed, Catholic fetus worshipping, woman hating zealot. Reality bites, don’t it.
True – for better or worse, Joel Pett’s cartoon of Santorum in the “Stanek Sunday funnies, 3-4-12” thread depicts it well.
CC: “ Unemployment affects the post-born. In other words, real time.”
Right. Because the unborn fold space and exist in a time warp.
I wonder if there’s anything we could have done in the past to avoid the recent post-recession slump.
If only “real time” is of such importance, does that mean foresight is for rubes? Pre-natal care, given such a judgment, is pointless. Just care for ’em once they’re in “real time.”
So now not only are the unborn deemed rubbish because of their matter (incidental tissue, parasite, whatever), and because of their space (in the womb: no value, out of the womb: value), but now we add to this calculus of worthlessness their relation in time. They’re not “real time.”
Space, matter, and time — their ontic significance just doesn’t comport with the Standard Model!
Rasqual: I wonder if there’s anything we could have done in the past to avoid the recent post-recession slump.
Go back in time and tell that clown Phil Gramm not to fight the regulation of the securities industry, and not to slip the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into a spending bill in late 2000. It set the stage for the derivatives meltdown (as well as the real estate crash) and the credit crunch that occurred in 2007.
Rasqual: Space, matter, and time — their ontic significance just doesn’t comport with the Standard Model!
“Ontic” – definitely my word of the day. :)
Despite being outspent heavily wherever he goes, and despite taking fire from his three opponents, two of which take anti-Romney votes from him, Santorum is nevertheless very competitive. Michael Voris’ take on this as the first real Catholic to run and the heavy protestant support for him hits a home run. It is an amazing story. It looks like a lot of people are not buying the establishment Republican press the panic button line that Santorum cannot win.
The non-comments (well, maybe they are comments if one considers drivel as a legit comment) from our resident outpsoken Catholic church hating troll are quite telling. Apparently a possible Santorum presidency is the worse possible nightmare for promoters of baby killing, so much so that there is a frenzy of lies about Santourm. But we predicted that months ago—lies, lies, and more lies would be the staple of our Contraceptor-in-Chief and his democratic/socialist apparatchits in the upcoming elections.
:) Rasqual, seriously: we need to get a few trolls in with you, record your replies, and publish it as a book. I’d buy a copy! This sort of amusement just shouldn’t be free…
Love the “fake Catholic” stamp they put over John Kerry’s face. LOL
Paladin, I just don’t get the myopia of “unemployment affects the post-born” — as if CC has never herself claimed that poverty affects the pre-born: A year ago she argued that absent the availability of abortion, “the children of those who were unable to afford these children might have overwhelmed the foster system and we might have returned to the days when unwanted children were put into orphanages where they would have been subject to all manner of abuse.”
If unemployment makes it difficult “to afford these children,” it’s obvious even from CC’s remarks that unemployment affects the unborn as well as her “real-time” cohort.
Pro-aborts just figure any stick is good enough to beat life to death with, no matter the contradictions.
Voris gives credit where credit is due.
Pharmer the Catholic is more respectful of Evangelical Protestants because they tend to take their religion with them when they go to work, play, party, etc. They also were the first ones to understand the problem of health care professionals being expected to participate in abortion, and lend their assistance.
Why did the Catholic bishops sell out principles for government funding of their social programs?
You know it’s the reason that we need Nigerian Priests to be doing missionary work in the United States. I appreciate the Imported Priests I’ve met so far, for preaching a more authentic message.