“Politically Correct” Nuttiness
And occasional good news on the PC front.
Dem Attacks on Big Oil May Hurt Consumers, Analyst Says
As Democratic leaders in Congress prepare efforts to roll back “subsidies” to oil companies in favor of investing in renewable energy and conservation, conservative analysts warn that the approach will likely hit consumers at the gas pump.
--CNSNews.com--
“May”?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Toys 'R’ Us Caves to Illegals on Decision on Baby Contest
NEW YORK - After coming under fire for denying a Chinese-American infant a $25,000 prize in a New Year's baby contest because her mother was not a legal U.S. resident, the Toys “R” Us company said Saturday evening that it had reversed its decision.
--AOL News--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Heart-attack victim forced to wait 20 minutes, although emergency vehicles 5 minutes away
When a 73-year-old Londoner collapsed at a betting shop on New Year's Eve afternoon, his luck had run out – thanks to European Union rules that required two nearby ambulance crews to be kept on their 30-minute breaks.
--WorldNetDaily.com--
This is the “superior” culture that the left wants the U.S. to emulate.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]'Madness’: Top cop refused to release killers’ pics
A Chief constable was accused of 'madness’ last night after refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers amid fears it might breach their human rights.
--London Evening Standard--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]ACLU sues county over illegals-housing ordinance
ATLANTA - A suburban Atlanta county has agreed to temporarily block a new ordinance that bans landlords from renting to illegal immigrants, after activists launched a legal attack against it.
--Macon.com (AP)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Why John McCain is finished
Why does John McCain hate the GOP?
--WorldNetDaily.com--
Why does McCain hate the GOP? He wouldn't be the media darling he is if he didn't.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Climate bigwigs blasted for frequent-flight habits
Environment Agency Wales (EAW) have been sending its staff on an air trip less than every two weeks - at the same time as urging everyone else to use other means of transport.
--IC Wales--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Oil Giant Accused of Funding Global Warming 'Disinformation’
Accusing ExxonMobil of funding a “disinformation campaign” against global warming, an environmental activist group said Wednesday the oil giant has been paying advocacy groups to create confusion about climate change.
--CNSNews.comut--
The “environmental activist group” calls itself the “Union of Concerned Scientists” (UCS), but this story reveals the harsh truth that they're not concerned with science. \nTheir main complaint is that the alleged “disinformation” is spreading “uncertainty” about 'global warming’. Uncertainty is another word for skepticism, which is the bedrock of the scientific method. If these guys were really “concerned scientists”, they'd be more concerned about those who are trying stifle skepticism, but then they'd be pointing a finger at themselves.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]French court says pork soup not racist
A French court has ruled that an organisation with far-right links can continue offering pork soup to the homeless, rejecting police complaints that the food distribution was racist.
--Sydney Morning Herald--
If they offered everything but pork soup, wouldn't that be just as “racist”?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Broken Thermometer Causes 100 to Respond to Mercury Spill
CARMEL, N.Y. - It was quite a New Year's Eve at the home of Richard Berger in Carmel - in Putnam County. Someone in the house broke a rectal thermometer and the family called 911 around 10:30 to report the small mercury spill.
--WSYR.com (AP)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Science told: hands off gay sheep
SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.
--London Times--
More anti-science from the left.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Wshington Suburb Takes On 'Global Warming’
Arlington County will buy more wind-generated electricity, give tax breaks for hybrid cars, require new public buildings to be green-certified and hand out energy-efficient light bulbs to residents as part of a major push toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, county officials said yesterday.
--Washington Post--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Christian woman facing fight for sons
A Christian woman who once served as an FBI informant on her husband's alleged support of terrorism now is seeking divorce from the self-described radical Muslim who told her he would be proud if their two teen sons blew themselves up for Allah.
--WorldNetDaily.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]UK swimmers stew over ethnic-only pool sessions
Wolverhampton City Council employs special life-guards and instructors for the sessions, which are open to the city's black and Asian residents only.
--London Evening Standard--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Aussie Pastors’ convictions for quoting Quran overturned
Two Australian pastors who were convicted of “vilifying” Muslims when they quoted from the Quran during a seminar on jihad have had their appeals upheld by the Victorian Supreme Court.
--WorldNetDaily.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]German 'environmentalists’: Limit autobahn speeds
BERLIN - German environmentalists hope the country's stewardship of the Group of Eight and the European Union in 2007 will help steer the car-crazy nation towards imposing speed limits on its unrestricted autobahns.
--CNN (Reuters)--
“Environmentalism” is too often just another way of controlling other people's behavior. Real environmentalists focus on their own actions.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Gov. Should Compensate Crime Victims, Says Gun Rights Group
Wisconsin's Democratic governor should reimburse victims of recent armed robberies in the state because its citizens are not permitted to carry concealed weapons and protect themselves when confronted by criminals, a gun rights group said.
--CNSNews.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Felon turned lawmaker: Protect felons’ voting rights
TALLAHASSEE - State Sen. Gary Siplin lost his right to vote in elections because he's a convicted felon. But because he can still vote in the Florida Legislature, he is trying to make sure he and other felons automatically get their rights back after they finish their sentence.
--South Florida Sun-Sentinel--
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday December 27, 2006 16:29
Helen's comment was erroneously connected to another story due to a programming error - since corrected (I hope).
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Wednesday December 27, 2006 12:30
I thought that NY also disallowed felons from voting. It this true? The article says that only 3 states, southern, forbid felons from voting.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 20, 2006 10:32
Of course they would. It would be front page news if the wife of a "pro-life" politician had an abortion. ESPECIALLY if that politician was George Bush, or one of his "cronies." They would only help keep it quiet if it were a pro-choice activist. But they are completely unbiased, so I must be wrong, right?
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 13, 2006 11:27
It's too bad the Journal didn't attend any of the discussions, forums, or debates in the 102nd Assembly district during the election campaign. They could have reported on his "ethics" BEFORE he was re-elected - if, indeed, they would have considered it front-page news during election season... which I doubt.
Author: D. Giannelli
Date: Wednesday December 13, 2006 11:13
To me this is political posturing. He was accused of pandering to the local school boards
and to the teachers union during the campaign. So he grandstands on "behalf" of the parents
(with the approval of the "shocked" school board?). It has been alleged that this whole bus
stop issue is a smokescreen to get the public's collective eye off of the construction cost
at WCSD.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Tuesday December 12, 2006 20:03
Clearly, all he can do is plead guilty. He chose to kill to protect those who could not protect themselves, which is still wrong. He should make every effort to talk about abortion and his pro-life views since he is going to be found guilty anyway, and being found in contempt of court is not going to change his sentence. I wonder if his outbursts (assuming he defies the judge and speaks his mind) will be given the same amount of respect that Saddam Hussein's outbursts got in his trial? Hmm...
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday December 9, 2006 11:09
I do not beleive murder or shooting of any kind is a solution to the horror of abortion.
As to Mr. Koop I do not know if he is really guilty or covering for someone who is more vunerable then he. I also hope he fights all the way to the supreme court on this Federal Charge. They are playing persecution games with him.
So as far as I am concerned they are all guilty and there are no innocents in the case, there may just be more guilty we do not know about.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:35
Re: “To vote for a pro-abort candidate to me is an immoral act that would keep me from Receiving my Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament.”
Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to be saying otherwise, though far be it from me to tell you how to practice your religion.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:34
And Bill can say that a vote for Sue Kelly is a vote against John Hall and a vote for Nick Spano is a vote against Andrea Stewart-Cousins. No thanks. I will never support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:07
Joe,
Fortunately the other guy did not win.
I think your choice a good one. In that case I had to go with the better man that could possibly win. Not a compromise. Say it was a vote against his opponent.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:00
Bk,
Why oh, why did I ever ask the first question.
Bill, I am responsible before God for MY actions, not those of others. To vote for a pro-abort candidate to me is an immoral act that would keep me from Receiving my Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament.
Helen can not either. I do not know about Joe, but so far I agree with everything he has said except not liking my guy for President in '08.
No More. I will read no more and respond no more I can not convince you and you certainly are no going to change me.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:43
Patricia,
I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004. I agree with Pat Buchanan on many things, but I would not vote for him due to his endorsement of pro-abort President Bush in '04. He definitely isn't running in '08. I suspect his political career is over, but he is still useful as a writer and talking head. I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush for dogcatcher.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:35
Alan Keyes is all rhetoric and no action. He is against Face the Truth demonstrations, and still hangs with that larcenous fraud, Randall Kerry.
Keyes just loves the sound of his own voice.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:33
Re: “What cheap shot?”
You sound like the worst kind of Liberal.
Get some back bone man. It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.
How can you possibly say I have no backbone? Just because I disagree with you?
And insuating that I go along to get along is absurd! If I was doing that, I'd just “go along” with the conservative “base” that thinks putting anti-American socialists in power to uphold some kind of “principle” is the way to go.
How much cheaper does the shot have to be?
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:32
You didn't answer my last comment, Bill. Why?
I didn't exactly call you a lobotomized cultist. I just IMPLIED that you may be among their number...
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:23
Re: “Those issues can never be compromised for political expediancy.”
You're confusing the issue. I'm not talking about compromising for political expediency, I'm talking about compromising for results. Al Gore compromised his “pro-life” position in order to be acceptable for national office by his pro-abort party. That's an example of “political expediency”. Compromise for results is an entirely different animal. When you demand 100% acceptance of your position in the political world, you usually end up with 0%.
One of the big knocks against ‘liberals’ is that their intentions are taken more seriously than are the actual results of their policies. For instance, it doesn't seem to matter to them that their welfare state ends up dooming more people to a state of dependency. All that matters is that they “care”.
You seem to be falling into the same trap.
What if you wake up Wednesday morning to hear that John Hall won by one vote, giving pro-abortion Democrats control of the House by one seat? They then proceed to roll back all the (albeit small) steps the GOP has taken on PBA, parental notification, defense of marriage, etc. Will you feel the slightest bit responsible because your vote could have made the difference?
You may think you were “100% right”, but in reality, you'd be 100% responsible for the mischief.
And yes, this election could be that close!
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:55
Joe,
Did you vote for President Bush in '00 & 04?
He was the best there was and he is Pro-Life, granted not as Pro-Life as we thought he was. But as a very wise priest said in '04 "None of these guys are up for canonization".
I know that sounds like I am going back on the compromise thing I am not. I believed him to be fully Pro-Life. He is as much as he knows how to be and I still believe him to be an honorable man. The closest to 100% Pro Life we are going to get is Alan Keyes. Pat B, but he scares the dickens out of me. As strong and radical as Dr. Keyes is he seems to be the better man. Always did. I was talked into, yes, compromise in '96 by not writing in his name in the primery. No More.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:28
Patricia,
I was also a Keyes delegate in 2000. However, I would not vote for him again due to his endorsement of pro-abort President Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:17
BK,
RE. Compromise
Compromise is one thing on prudential issues, but there are certain core issues that are non negotiable. Life, from fertilization to natural, non assisted death, and marriage and family. Those issues can never be compromised for political expediancy.
That's like at the Conference in Egypt a number of years ago the liberals screamed at the Vatican representative asking why they came if they were not willing to compromise.
We can not go back and fix any of that or change it if it is not right we can not bring people back to life.
That is why they are non negotiable.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:07
P.s. One of Dr. Keyes heros, as was mine, was President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The Democratic President that lowered taxes and also had trouble with a Congress of his own party.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:02
BK,
What cheap shot?
I AM a Democrat at heart. A Conservative one to be sure, but for much of my adult life I voted and worked for Democratic candidates. After Roe & Doe I registered RTL. Then in order to vote in primeries I registered Republican. Always I have voted for the candidate.
Now, sorry for your philosphy, but I would vote for the most liberal of tax raising Democrats if they were Pro-Life.
Fortunately I have not been faced with that.
Maybe some of you remember I was on the ballot to be Alan Keyes delegate in 2000. He is still where my heart is and pray he runs again in '08.
Now there is a man I think we could all support. I know Helen has feelings about him because of a certain friendship he seems to have manintained. I am sure she would vote for him over Hillery. Especially since I am sure that that friend would play no part in Dr.Keyes' government.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 8:14
Re: “We will get what we demand.”
You won't get things by demanding them, you have to work for them. But first, you have to formalize what you want to accomplish.
For pro-lifers (of varying degrees), those objectives would be:
1. Changing one's self,
2. Changing others' attitudes, and
3. Changing laws.
The first two can be done in church, on the street, in conversations, and in publications.
The third has to be accomplished in the arena of politics, and that requires compromise. The amount of compromise can be a function of how well you do #2, but compromise is necessary until you get 50.1% on your side.
As long as you take the attitude that you'll refuse to compromise because you'd rather be 100% “right”, you accomplish nothing, and in reality, end up 100% wrong!
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 7:33
Re: “It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.”
Are you accusing me of going along to get along? That's just plain silly! I could just as believably make the same charge against you - but I won't. I'd rather stick to the issue.
And your statement that you people splitting conservatives aren't “tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart” is wrong by definition. If you had your way, we'd have a party for “100% pro-life”, another for 90%, another for 80%, etc., and each faction would be completely powerless and ineffective. The problem with some people is that it's more important for them to be “right” than to accomplish anything, and in this case, accomplishments would mean saving lives. How many are you saving while you pat yourself on the back for being “right”?
Re: “It is time to stop now…”
If you want to stop, just stop. But don't take a cheap shot and then say it's time to stop. That makes you sound like a Democrat.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 23:42
BK,
It is time to stop now Bill. This has been more than enough.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:15
BK,
You sound like the worst kind of Liberal.
Get some back bone man. It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.
We will get what we demand.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:15
You haven't been listening, obviously. "My" Conservative party is filled with corruption
and lies to people. That's exactly why I'm running Bill!It's just as bad at the state level. I have exposed this with this candidacy.
BTY, I haven't noticed any endorsements from the GOP either. O yeah; they're all too "moderate" to back a person who holds such "extreme" views.
Haven't you heard ANYTHING I've been saying for the last 3 months?
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:08
As smart, I do not know,
Righter we are.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:04
Movin,
Another one not acting on Principle.
I hope you are voting for Helen. we know she is 100% Pro-Life. That way you will not be a complete traitor to LIFE.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:06
And Helen, what has your party done for the good of mankind? You're their standard-bearer in the 102nd and they won't even endorse you, let alone give you any support.
You can bad-mouth the GOP all you want but if you don't have a viable alternative, all you're accomplishing is giving “aid and comfort”.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:56
When you stoop to name-calling, you sound like a Democrat.
Author: Patricia (real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:50
I do not know about smarter, but we are RIGHTER!
That is better.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:15
WE are responsible for the weakness of the GOP?
The GOP, both locally and nationally, is a party of wimps.
IT gets control of congress twice, and it's "big tent" philosophy has given us nothing; no boarder security, a globalist president who makes his bed with Vincenti Fox, a Congress full of proaborts and fatcats who are doing as much to tear this country down as the liberals.
You know the saying that a grand jury will indight a ham sandwich\BK, you would eat dirt if it came in a jar that says "Republican".
Certain things are not open to compromise. Certain things are non-negotiable.
As far as I'm concerned the only true Republican/Conservative is Pat Buchanan.
You GOP apologists are like lobotomized cultists, and your infallible leader is Bush.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 17:03
Joe,
Don't you know the difference between “conservative” and “Conservative”? Only one of them is a proper noun.
Years ago, there was a Liberal Party in NY. It split the Democrats just like the Conservative Party is splitting Republicans today. But the ‘liberals’ were smart enough to consolidate and in the process made the Democrat Party more ‘liberal’ (and stronger). I hate to think that they're smarter than conservatives, but from what I'm reading here, I'm not so sure they're not.
People like yourself have meanwhile been working to weaken the GOP, and what has it gotten us? One of the most ‘liberal’ state governments in the country, with no prospects of improvement.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:50
I am trully sorry Bill. If you had really wanted to help Helen you would have. Helen needed everyone.
You don't get it. Chris Smith, how many years in Congress now, was RTL but gained the acceptance of the Republican Party. We need to get started with some like Helen and next time around she will be on both Republican and Conservative, better yet Constitution party.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:40
So we are disinfranchised.
Hope I spelled that right. I usually just hit reg. reply and Bill puts in on site but he doesn't want to do that now.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:17
That makes no sense. Why would the existence of the Conservative Party cause the Republican Party to nominate pro-abort liberals like Sue Kelly? The Conservative Party has endorsed her too. Both parties are pro-abort.
If you are not a conservative, why did you write "Besides, I can't submit one until after the election, since I'm a conservative and have to abide by their rules." Whose orders are you following?
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 13:58
Re: “BTW, I neglected to mention another pro-abort candidate endorsed by the Conservative Party: Sue Kelly!”
And I suppose it never occurred to you that the reason the GOP runs candidates like Sue Kelly is because conservatives “divorced” themselves from the party.
We don't need Democrats dividing us, we're doing a fine job of it all on our own.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 13:45
I'm not registered as Conservative! I tried to change my registration some time ago, but the paperwork apparently got lost. I have since recognized the error of my ways and will not make that mistake again any time soon.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 12:25
If America is indeed a two-party country, why are you registered with the Conservative Party as you previously indicated. The Conservative Party is a third party you know, though not a pro-life party.
BTW, I neglected to mention another pro-abort candidate endorsed by the Conservative Party: Sue Kelly!
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 12:06
Re: “Both the Republican AND Conservative Parties are pro-abort.”
I disagree with that assessment, although it can be said that they've been taken over by people who are not dedicated to the GOP's stated principles. And part of that problem rests, in my opinion, on the splintering of the conservative base of the Republican Party. We see the results in the way the DCCP treats Helen. The Republicans run a left-wing candidate largely because conservatives would rather split off than fight for control of the party. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party thinks it has to support the left-wing RINO in order to remain relevant.
The political reality today is that this is a two-party country. It will take a seismic event to change that. In order to implement an agenda, we need political clout, and as a third party, the only real clout we'd have is the power to sabotage. That's hardly a plan for success.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:51
Re: “So THAT'S why you haven't written any letters to the editor to support my campaign.”
You don't need me writing to support you, you need people who aren't normally vocal (and aren't listed on your website) to stand up for you. So far, I haven't seen any.
People who read the PJ already know where I stand. If I wrote a letter supporting you, it would be a wasted letter, in my opinion, and to me, they're like gold. Besides, I can't submit one until after the election, since I'm a conservative and have to abide by their rules.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:11
Both the Republican AND Conservative Parties are pro-abort. Both endorsed both Pataki and Spano.
Author: Movin
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:04
The right way is to put up a candidate who is 100 % pro-life in the Republican primary and get rid of Kelly. But until then, I agree with Bill, this time.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 10:11
So THAT'S why you haven't written any letters to the editor to support my campaign.
I wondered.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:28
Re: “we need to divorce the GOP”
No, we need to save the marriage.
The GOP is an oil tanker, and the Conervative Party is a dinghy. While the dinghy may be easier to steer, it doesn't get anything delivered.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:25
"Remote Material" or other wise I am not doing it at all.
I will not even "Remotely" agree to the death of a sister or brother in the human family.
END OF DISCUSSION
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:20
An exerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington in 2004, reads as follows:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
(emphasis mine)
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:10
Joe,
Amen!
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 8:27
I will never vote for a pro-abort. I've got just one life, and I know what's right.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 8:22
Sorry Bill I can not give my vote to any pro-abort. I just will not vote at all for Congress.
You will have to forgive me Bill, but I vote according to what my insides tell me is right NOT political expediancy.
I am not responsible for what happens after the election as long as I did not participate in killings of any kind, except terrorists.
You have no idea how close to home you are coming on that one. No abortion but it's sister euthinasia.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 7:35
Thanks for the compliment, Helen, but I can only wish I was the “Rush Limbaugh of Dutchess County”.
Please read the latest Weekly Briefing from the Population Research Institute (www.pop.org). If you're on their mailing list (which pro-lifers should be), you should have already gotten it, but unfortunately, it wasn't on their website at this writing.
Do you think there will be less abortions with Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker? Do you think a Democrat-controlled House would have passed the bill to keep the ACLU from profiting on lawsuits against religious holiday displays? Will Frisco Nancy allow any bill defending marriage get to the floor for a vote?
Wake up people! This is the most important mid-term election in decades. Sitting it out will make you responsible for the mischief Democrats unleash on us. And writing in the name of someone who can't possibly win is essentially no different than siting it out.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 23:39
I agree with Patricia as well!
Prolifers MUST stop the compromises...and we need to divorce the GOP.
Sorry Bill (The Rush Limbaugh of Dutchess County) K.
Remember, vote for ME!!
Author: Joe
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 17:14
I agree with Patricia. I am in Sue Kelly's district. I decided many years ago that I would never support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception. My recollection is that in the past since I have lived in this district there has always been a Right To Life candidate on the ballot opposing her, and Ben Gilman before her. If there is not this time I will right in the name of some eligible prolife person. Since I have made that pledge I have never had cause to vote for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Author: BK
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 16:26
Patricia,
I'll gladly give you a clothes-pin so you can have both hands free while you hold your nose and vote for Sue Kelly. Granted, she's rotten on the issue of abortion, but if she loses to John Hall the Communist, it could make the difference in who controls House committees, and that could be disastrous.
If Joel Tyner is elected to the Assembly because Helen took votes from Miller, it won't make a hill of beans difference in what happens in New York, but Voting against Sue Kelly could make a HUGE difference nation-wide.
Please reconsider.
Author: Patricia
Date: Thursday November 2, 2006 13:08
Do I care? I do not vote for pro-death people in any case. Who kmows what she knew or when she knew it.If she allows death other than in God's time she does not belong there either.
ACLU Sues Texas Town for Not Renting to Illegals
Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a suburb's new law that outlaws renting to illegal immigrants, alleging the ordinance violates federal law and forces landlords to act as immigration officers.
--NewsMax.com (AP)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened
The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.
--Washington Post--
If Pres. Bush is looking for a legacy, caving in to “political correctness” isn't the way to get one that will stand the test of time
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Islamic Group Has Mastered Victimization Game, Critic Says
The Republican lawmaker who sparked a storm with comments about Muslims and the need to tighten immigration laws is the latest target of an Islamic advocacy group's “victimization game,” a political analyst said Thursday.
--CNSNews.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Christians Decry College 'Compromise’ on Chapel Cross
In a move aimed to appease Christians who were offended by the removal of a cross from the campus chapel, College of William and Mary President Gene Nichol on Wednesday announced a “compromise” that acknowledges the chapel's Christian roots - but keeps the cross stored most times.
--CNSNews.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]