Poughkeepsie Journal Letters Pages
Search Journal's Archive: By Date
Advanced Search
To perform advanced searches of a database of letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal, click here.
| 1/6/2004 | 12/23/2003 | 1/6/2004 | 1/14/2004 |
| 2/17/2004 | 5/9/2004 | 9/1/2004 | 10/5/2004 |
| 10/6/2004 | 7/23/2005 | 7/30/2005 | 2/27/2006 |
| 2/2/2006 | 3/1/2006 |
The Legislature's Job
According to Bibi Sandstrom, who writes for Mid-Hudson Sierra Club, “The Legislature, whose job is to protect constituents’ health …” \nAnd I thought the job of the legislature was to protect constituents’ freedom to protect (or not protect) their own health. Silly me! \nThe letter is in support of mandatory well testing, and doesn't make a lot of sense. \nMs. Sandstrom calls the target test program a “hit-and-miss game”, and offers the alternative of mandatory testing at sale of a house, which she says will “assure every new homeowner the water at the time of sale is safe to drink, cook and bathe in.” \nIsn't relying on house sales more of a “hit-and-miss game” than testing of a limited, but targeted, number of homes? \nIf this is the kind of thinking going on at the Sierra Club, should we really take the organization seriously?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Spot the Hater
Whenever you disparage the left's agenda, you're apt to be accused of “hate”. You always have to wonder if the “hate” seen by the accusers isn't a reflection of their own. The letter from Roger A. Mann of Milton is a good example. After you read his letter, read the one he says is a “hate mail list”. Which one is more filled with hate? You be the judge.
--Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective--
Author: BK
Date: Thursday December 28, 2006 15:57
There's a difference?
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Thursday December 28, 2006 15:54
HMMM..."Anonymous"? I'll bet you are Joel Miller!!!!
Author: Anonymous
Date: Thursday December 28, 2006 15:45
SPOT THE HATER?????? SHOULD READ "SPOT THE LIBERAL."
Jason Williams, Poughkeepsie: His words are sharp as any weapon
Jason Williams doesn't like hunters - you can tell from his letter. He packed more insults into 155 words than almost anyone I've ever seen. \nHere's the list: \nHunters are “poltroons”; \n“Sport hunters are malingerers”; \n“…most people who enjoy using guns in this manner probably could not preserve strawberries…”; \n“intelligence [his] can ultimately prevail over bellicosity [theirs]”; \nHunters are “gun-toting murderers”. \nHis letter does, however, contain one redeeming statement: “I challenge folks to start preserving and saving life instead.” Funnny thing, though, going back through previous letters, I can't find any where he calls abortionists “murderers”, or condemns their practice at all.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]The Smoking Gun
A few days ago, I pointed out that a frequent leftist letter-writer, Mark Schoenfeld, had gotten a letter in only three days after his “black-out” period had expired. I also mentioned that I had submitted a letter 11 days earlier, and it hadn't appeared yet, even though it was almost identical to Schoenfeld's letter in length.
I brought this to the attention of John Penney, and his excuse was that sometimes copy editors needed a letter of a particular length to fill a space. Considering how copy editors can always make slight adjustments, it seemed like a specious excuse to me.
Well, Monday the truth was exposed when they finally got around to printing my letter fifteen days after I submitted it, which was after the “black-out” period. I measured the column length of both letters, and found that Schoenfeld's and my letters were almost exactly identical in length. In fact, his was slightly longer (by about 1/16 inch), despite having two fewer lines. So not only did they give leftist Schoenfeld preferential treatment, they must have had to stretch his letter in order to fit it into the available space which, as was shown yesterday, would have accomodated mine nicely.
If it had been an infrequent writer, I could understand, but Schoenfeld writes often. He also has a history of misstatements, such as when he falsely “quoted” Michelle Malkin, when what he claimed she said was actually quotes from a leftist website that she had included in her column (You can read my response here). I doubt that any conservative would have gotten away with such an “error” against a ‘liberal’ columnist.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Targeting the Poor
According to a letter from Clare Coleman, President & CEO Planned Parenthood Mid-Hudson Valley, they'll be giving away free “Emergency Contraception” to “celebrate the new over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.” She claims this is an “advancement for women's health.” I wonder!
You'd think that an advancement in women's health would involve more monitoring by doctors, but in Planned Parenthood's world, it's just the opposite. Now, instead of poor women going to a doctor and having an exam, which might detect early signs of cervical or uterine cancer, so they can get their birth control prescription filled, now they can just go to a drugstore and buy it off the shelf. How this is a health advancement is hard to understand unless you know the history of Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger founded the organization in order to help the “human weeds” stop breeding. Apparently, the present administration of her organization has taken it to another level - premature death of women being the most effective birth control they've come up with. OTC “Plan B” will undoubtedly lead to more premature deaths - and they'll occur in the lower economic strata where “Plan B” will become “Plan A”.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 15:00
I suggest that we all drop by one or more locations and pick up some of this poison - just to take it off the market. It's free, so what do you have to lose?
Men, especially, should try to pick it up. The older, the better. If they give it to you it helps prove the case that they are routinely an accessory-after-the-fact to statutory rape. If they don't give it to you, I suggest suing them for sex discrimination, (in offering disparate services to men and women.)
Mainly, though, I just hope to reduce the amount of poison they give to people who will actually use the stuff.
EC? I thought "contraceptives" acted "against conception," not by preventing implantation! Plan B is clearly an abortifact. Perhaps it is ALSO a contraceptive, but it is NOT and should not be called a contraceptive.
Un-biased? Really? Let's Prove It!
Some of you may be aware of an e-mail exchange between John Penney, the Opinion Page Editor of the Journal, and a few of “us”. At the end, he was very indignant that we on the right could dare to say he and his paper are biased.
I was doing some work on the site that had me going somewhat randomly through some old letters, and I came across one that made me wonder if Mr. Penney would have allowed it had it been directed at the other end of the political spectrum. Granted, it's a little old, but it doesn't pre-date Penney's tenure at that position. It's from Jan. 2004.
If you're on the right, Mr. Tony Allan Raynor says that your political agenda “has the same foundation and incites such behavior” as those who would be “gassing the people or lynching them”. He also says that “half the people [in the country] resemble Nazis” and he makes it clear which half he's referring to. This kind of invective goes a bit beyond being merely offensive, it would be libelous if directed at an individual.
This may be asking too much, but I wonder if someone out there could compose a letter in the style of the aforementioned one and submit it to the Journal. I'd really like to see them print such a letter directed at themselves.
But of course they wouldn't!
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 15:05
I believe the trend started when it became "cool" to call them "huevos" which in Spanish means something completely different. EGGS.
Anyway, I am about prepared to send my letter, and will post it as a comment somewhere on this site when I am prepared to send it. MY blackout period is just a few days dead.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Tuesday December 5, 2006 23:39
Ok; then I ask that someone out there write a letter that details the total blackout of my campaign by the Journal; I've sent you all the letter to the Editorial Board, "Much Ado".Patricia Kennedy is the only one so far to mention it. Now someone can fill in the blanks using my letter to the Board.
That no one but Patricia has made the effort - and the fact that this blog has covered NOTHING about the issue of the triple candidacy in the 102nd district, and the editor has written NO letters about this, causes me much consternation.
What we need here is cojones; unfortunately, the fact that only females seem to have them, exemplifies the feminization of society.
Author: Linda Cebrian
Date: Monday December 4, 2006 13:22
Maybe they should also provide beds with clean sheets for prostitutes as well.
More Gibberish from Schoenfeld
Today's letter from Mark Schoenfeld of Hopewell Junction is more confused than his usual offerings, and that's saying something.
First off, in quoting George Will out of context (which is normal for Mark), he misses the obvious - that Will is “unhappy” as a Cubs fan because the Cubs had a history of losing. Schoenfeld refers to Will's “unhappy political views” without regard to recent research showing that generally, conservatives are happier than ‘liberals’.
But then he follows up with a real doozy. He writes, “[L]iberalism's basic philosophy is the development of individual freedom.” When you look at the political agenda of today's “liberals”, it's hard to reconcile liberalism with individual freedom. From welfare to universal health insurance, to gun control, to school choice, to taxes and on and on, today's so-called ‘liberals’ have little regard for individual freedom when it gets in the way of their agenda. For instance we can look back on Schoenfeld's own writing and find where he stands. In a March 21, 2006 letter he argues against the individual freedom of business owners. In a March 15, 2005 letter, and a December 30, 2004 letter, he rails against your individual freedom to control your own retirement funding. He has written many letters defending abortion, but in order for his pro-abortion position to be in support of individual freedom, he has to dismiss the individuality of the unborn child.
And then his letter gets completely incoherent. He gives credit to liberalism for the end of slavery. In doing so, he ignores the role of Christianity (a frequent target of his rants) and the fact that Lincoln was a Republican. We might forgive him if he didn't then go on to equate “Republican” with “conservative” in his attack on the 11th Circuit Court.
There's something else of note about this letter. Schoenfeld had his last letter published Oct. 28. His 30-day “blackout” period, during which he can't submit another letter, ended only three days ago. For the record, I sent in a letter on Nov. 19, and it took them more than three days to acknowledge it, and they haven't printed it yet. And it contains fewer words than Schoenfeld's. And John Penney claims there's no bias on his page. What a joke!
Author: Patricia
Date: Thursday December 7, 2006 1:06
Easy does it there Sparrowhead.
I get you drift and agree, but please do not compare Our Lord to Ice Cream.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 16:58
In response to that old letter:
Souls cannot starve. They are IMMORTAL. Way to cherry-pick and misconstrue the Catechism.
To follow his line of reasoning, though, the 'kids' have eviscerated themselves by supporting the continuation of abortion. A good mother would not give food to a child whose entire GI tract was missing. That mother would ask a doctor (priest?) to provide food through an IV (prayer?) in the hopes of helping her child regain his/her strength, so that perhaps the missing organs can be restored (penance?)
People who condone abortions are not worthy of Communion any more than a child who burns down the house is worthy to receive ice cream after dinner.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Thursday November 30, 2006 19:54
So ANSWER it...
Author: BK
Date: Thursday November 30, 2006 18:54
If you want a real Mark Schoenfeld classic, read this one.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Thursday November 30, 2006 15:38
So answer it.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Thursday November 30, 2006 14:30
Well, as long as the person making the bad choice isn't a conservative or a Republican, like Rush Limbaugh, or Dick Cheney, or Jack Abramoff, etc. Then, "liberals" want all the punishment that is not given to purveyors and providers of fetal infanticide to be applied to THEM instead.
Author: BK
Date: Thursday November 30, 2006 13:25
Come to think of it, there is an “individual freedom” that today's ‘liberals’ support - the freedom from responsibility for bad choices.
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.
Good Advice for Newcomers
It only took thirty eight words for Bruce Mark of Hopewell Junction to say what every newcomer to the Hudson Valley needs to hear:
To our new residents, remember that if you vote the same way up here that you voted when you lived in the city, the same results of the city you ran away from will follow you up here.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]What ‘Secret War’?
Marcia D. Seale of Wappingers Falls is a true ‘knee jerk liberal’. Her fairly frequent letters are often humorous, but not in the way she intends, I'm sure. Take the one that appears today (11/29). She goes on and on about “Bush's secret war”, but doesn't explain what the “secret” part is.
She made one statement I found particularly humorous. She writes, “All the wars we have ever experienced have included daily photos of flag-covered coffins being unloaded from huge airplanes. Bush vetoed that.” To what “wars” is she referring? The Spanish-American War? I don't think there were any airplanes, huge or otherwise, in that one. And “daily photos” of coffins? Maybe in the Vietnam War after Walter Cronkite decided it was time to convince the American people to cut-and-run. And if I remember correctly (and I do), Pres. Bush inherited the no-coffin-photos policy from his predecessor Pres. Clinton. Pres. Bush didn't “veto” it. (Hey John Penney, how'd you let that lu-lu get past your censors?)
Maybe she's trying to make the point that if we don't actually see the coffins, the deaths of our troops are a “secret”. That's just nonsense. The media make a point to give a daily body count. They also make it a point to reveal every military secret they can ferret out, which is why the administration has had to restrict reporters' access. But contrary to what Seale claims, reporters are still free to “roam, photograph and report at will.” They just might have to do it without being protected by our troops (whom the reporters then turn around and jeopardize by revealing operational secrets).
If you want to read some funny stuff, use the search feature and read her past letters. In one of them, she says she worked in a prison, and that prisoners are subject to “brutality, boredom, sexual abuse, and physical and mental abuse.” If she worked there and didn't do anything about it, was she part of the problem?
In another, she justifies spiraling school taxes with the argument that increasing school populations require tax increases. The fact of the increasing tax base resulting from the development that caused the population increase seems to be something too complex for her to understand. You get the feeling, although she doesn't say so, that she's a teacher. I hope she doesn't teach math.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Making the Editors Happy
What's the best way to kiss up to “mainstream” newspaper editors? You say that their newspaper has a right-wing bias rather than the actual, obvious left-wing bias that most of them have.
In the case of the letter from Mark Thomas, it spread such euphoria that they let him get away with some whoppers. He's gotten away with a lot in previous letters, and I'll get to that later.
He starts off claiming that the Journal is a “right-wing newspaper”, and he gives three reasons that supposedly support his view.
First, he says, ‘articles are written from a right-wing perspective, as if “we” are the Republican Party and the Democrats are the outsiders.’ Maybe he knows what he's writing about - I doubt if anyone else does.
Second, he counted up the Journal's election endorsements and found that they endorsed two more Republicans than Democrats. In an area where there are more Republicans in office, that's not surprising, since their tendency is to endorse incumbents unless there is good reason for not. And not all Republicans are “right-wing” and not all Democrats are “left-wing”. Joel Miller, the Republican candidate for the 102nd Assembly District, for example, supports a very left-wing agenda - he supports abortion “rights”, same-sex “marriage”, and is quite ‘liberal’. But Thomas counts his andorsement as evidence of a right-wing bias. Nonsense!
And I'm convinced that newspapers sometimes make endorsements in order to appear less biased than they actually are. If a Republican appears headed for certain defeat with or without their endorsement, they can endores him in order to satisfy the bean-counters like Mark Thomas. That would explain why the Journal endorsed John Sweeney, but gave their endorsement to Sue Kelly's opponent, who may have won because of it. Sweeney had so many problems, nothing could save him, and the Journal editors knew that.
Thomas's third piece of “evidence” is a real laugher - he and his partner have their letters edited because of “factual errors”. I wonder how bad those errors must be because the ones that get past the editor are whoppers - even the ones in this letter!
To show how “biased” the Journal is, he claims that while they censor his letters, they allow Linda Cebrian to write “hateful, bigoted and repulsive lies.” He refers to a Nov. 11 letter and goes on to paraphrase what Linda wrote. The problem is that none of what he says she wrote is actually in her letter.
Thomas has a history of distorting or lying about what other people write. Here's one example, and here's another, and another, and another, and another. These are just the more blatant examples of how Thomas distorts or lies about what others have written. If you use the “Advanced Search” feature on this page and select letters containing “Mark Thomas”, you'll find several other examples. If the Journal is censoring “factual errors” from his letters, I can only imagine how bad they must have been, considering what they've allowed.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Thursday November 23, 2006 1:09
WOuld John Penny know the truth if hr tripped over it?
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday November 22, 2006 14:41
Here's how John Penny responded:
Bill,
I believe Mark Thomas' letter demonstrates that I try to stop egregious factual errors from getting in the letters section, whether they are made by so-called right-wingers or left-wingers. You have always maintained that I hold Conservatives to a different standard; this is simply not true, as this letter in question clearly asserts.
I am not expecting you will believe this. I do know, however, that it has the benefit of being the truth.
Happy holidays.
John Penney
Editorial Page Editor
Poughkeepsie Journal
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday November 8, 2006 15:43
Sparrowhawk,
I have to comment on the “100% Pro-life” essay in the link you provided. Think carefully about this exerpt:
Father Frank Pavone admits that pro-lifers strongly desire to act without compromise in his booklet "Voting with a Clear Conscience". He recognizes that we want the peace of mind that comes from standing unequivocally for the principle of total protection for every innocent preborn child. Then, ironically, he urges the very opposite in action. For example, we are instructed, "if both candidates support abortion …vote for the candidate who will do less harm." This is presented as "limiting an evil" which he defines as "choosing good."
In other words the act of voting for a candidate who states publicly that he or she approves of the direct killing of innocent human beings is the moral thing to do.
But does it work? No!
I submit that her way doesn't work either! This was amply demonstrated in South Dakota where a “100% Pro-life” ballot initiative was soundly defeated.
What exactly was gained there? Pro-life suffered a severe loss, one from which it will not recover from soon. A less restrictive measure might well have passed, and babies' lives might have been saved - but it wouldn't have been “100% Pro-life”. Do you think the babies who might have been saved would want to be sacrificed because some people refuse to compromise?
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday November 8, 2006 14:36
Re: “I'm confused.”
You're not alone. Once upon a time, sex had a clear-cut meaning which is still reflected in the dictionary definition of the word. It referred to “either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures”. What you refer to are more accurately called sexual activities. Somewhere along the line, “sexual intercourse” became shortened to just “sex” in the popular vernacular.
The word gender actually is a grammatical term - i.e., something assigned to words. For example, the word his is of the masculine gender.
What's really curious is that as the society became more and more obsessed with sexual activities and innuendo, it became more prudish about using the word sex. It's now policically incorrect to use the word properly, but it's quite acceptable to flaunt sexuality.
This bastardization of the language should concern us. If we can't maintain constant meanings of words, how are future generations going to understand us when they read our writings?
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Wednesday November 8, 2006 11:22
Sparrowhawk,
I am confused. My understanding of "Sex" is an act. One that should be beautiful nad sacred when a man, of the male gender and a woman, of the female gender give themselves to one another in Marriage.
Gender to me is either a male or a female. In fact since the other word has become so misused, in word and deed, and tarnished I normally refer to the "Conjugal Act" and use gender when I speak of a man or a woman. When not in Marriage I then do refer to sex.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday November 8, 2006 10:35
This is just another example of liberals re-defining medical and legal language. First they change the definitions of "person" and "viable" and "life" and now they redefine "sex" away from the genetic XX or XY - which happens to be the only two possibilities not recognized by the medical establishment as diseases or disorders.
My birth certificate lists my SEX, not GENDER, and I doubt seriously that the NYC certificates are any different. IF they wish to ADD gender, then they can make up new rules to handle that. To equate sex with gender is worse than counterintuitive. It is poor journalism. Let words mean what they mean. If public opinion would support something, it would not need to be spun or couched in vague or misleading language.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:48
Re: “Haven't you heard ANYTHING I've been saying for the last 3 months?”
This was your “last comment”, and I didn't respond because rhetorical questions are generally considered (by definition) as not soliciting a response.
But my response would be that I've listened to you at least as much as you've listened to me.
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.
Count Every Vote
How many times have you heard the “count every vote” mantra from the left? I guess that only applys when a Democrat loses an election, judging by the letter from Mary Lieberman of Poughkeepsie who castigates Sue Kelly for not conceding the election.
In order to make every vote count, absentee and military ballots have to be included, and they aren't counted until about Nov. 15. When a the election day margin is less than the number of absentee ballots, an apparent loser owes it to those who voted in absentia to have their votes counted. So although it is highly unlikely that Kelly can eventually prevail, she not only has every right to withhold concession, she is living up to the left's professed standard.
They should be applauding her!
[an error occurred while processing this directive]A Cute Trick
Not too long ago, John Penney, Opinion Page Editor at the Journal, admonished us thus: “It would be great if you can get your facts straight before printing this stuff.” A letter appearing on John's page on Friday has us saying the same about him.
The writer, Barbara Upton of New Paltz, says, “[The Military Commissions Act] gives President Bush the power to jail anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them.” She also makes other dubious (to say the least) charges against the law fashioned to maintain her right to say stupid things. One of those charges is that the Act was the product of a “Republican-led, rubber-stamp Congress”.
Finishing her letter, Upton tells readers to ‘Goog[le] “unconstitutional Military Commissions Act”’. That's the “cute trick”. When you enter her search term, you're virtually guaranteed to get a completely one-sided (and mostly false) view. If she'd have left off the first word, she'd be inviting readers to get a more objective picture, something she obviously doesn't want.
Someone wishing to know the truth would first go to the Library of Congress where the pertinent information resides. One of the first things they'd find is that the bill received significant support from Democrats. In the senate, 12 Democrats and in the house, 32 Democrats voted for the bill (while 7 Democrats didn't care enough about it to vote at all).
Then, they might go to Wikipedia, which is not a completely authoritative source, but not a bad place to start as long as you understand its limitations. There they'd find, in this case, a fairly objective discussion of the pros and cons of the bill. For instance, they'd learn that “While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens.”
But according to Upton, the president can now have anyone (including citizens) locked up for any reason, for as long as he wants. She can't back that up with any factual information, and the fact that she hasn't been locked up is a strike against her.
He Must Think I Could Win!
Blow-hard Ed Kleinbaum starts off his letter by writing, “It is fortunate that William Kriebel is not a candidate for any office, especially an influential one.” An interesting choice of words.
The gist of Kleinbaum's condemnation of yours truly is that I, metaphorically speaking, want the police to have bigger and better guns than the criminals, and he wants to disarm the cops. His rationale is that giving the cops more powerful guns only encourages the criminals to increase their arsenals. If only the police would unilaterally disarm, we wouldn't have to worry about armed criminals - at least that's what Ed seems to be implying.
Never mind that even though the U.S. didn't embark on building the nuclear bunker-buster, rogue states like Iran and North Korea didn't see this as a reason to abandon their own nuclear ambitions. People like Ed Kleinbaum aren't deterred by facts and reality.
Somebody's Not Telling the Truth
There are two letters in today's paper that tell diametrically opposed stories. In one letter, Wayne Bayer of Rensselaer writes, “I have seen Kirsten Gillibrand in various forums and have never heard her utter a disparaging word about Sweeney's family or social life.” Another writer, Douglas Walters, Milan, has this to say: “For her part, Gillibrand shows total disdain for real issues by calling Sweeney a miscreant with a past arrest for drunken driving.”
So okay, the first guy qualified his statement - he never heard anything. So he's not really saying anything. So why would the Journal print a letter from Rensselaer saying nothing?
A Great Question
Bob LaColla of Fishkill writes with a very good question. He's responding to a Journal headline, “Legislator links Kelly to Foley scandal.” Here's the letter:
At what point does a newspaper stop reporting on the news and begin making it? The answer could be found in the Poughkeepsie Journal story titled “Legislator links Kelly to Foley scandal.” I scoured the story for Sue Kelly's “link” to the scandal, but curiously could not find one.
The legislator the story refers to is Congressman Jim Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress. Kolbe says several years ago, a House page informed him he received inappropriate e-mails from disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley, and he went to Foley's staff with this information.
Kelly was head of the Page Board in 1999-2000. Kelly has said repeatedly and forcefully she did not know Foley preyed on House pages, and if she had known, she would have acted to force Foley from Congress years ago.
Still searching for Kelly's “link” to the scandal? So am I. The only “link” I am yet aware of is Kolbe knew about Foley's predatory behavior and did not act appropriately.
So, I ask the Poughkeepsie Journal, how do you arrive at the headline Sue Kelly is linked to the Foley scandal?
I think I can answer. Can you?
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 19:39
Re: “The proaborts didn't get where they are through compromise.&rduo;
And they didn't get where they are by eating their own.
Rick Santorum made a mistake in campaigning for Arlen Specter. Except for that single mistake, he was an exemplary pro-life senator. But for that one mistake, he was replaced by a man that probably will turn out to be about as "pro-life" as Al Gore. Maybe the people who sat on their hands while Rick took the fall should practice some of their professed religion, particularly what it teaches about forgiveness.
Author: BK
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 19:26
Re: “The proaborts didn't get where they are through compromise.”
True - they got where they are by winning elections.
Re: “if it is a human being, as you say …”
This is where we part company somewhat. I don't believe that a fertilized ovum is a human being, any more than a removed appendix is a human being. What defines you is your brain. Theoretically, you could have your entire body replaced with parts from other people, and you still would be you - as long as you retained your brain. That is why I view the genesis of a person as the point in gestation where the brain starts to form. Unfortunately, that point is so early in gestation that many women don't even know they're pregnant. And abortionists don't like to do abortions that early because they can't always tell if the deed was accomplished.
Does this make me something less than 100% pro-life? Perhaps, but then, virtually no one is 100% pro-life. To be so, one would have to give up eating.
The important thing is that although I don't totally agree with your beliefs, I do respect them - totally. It would be nice if you reciprocated.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 18:15
Don, that's the whole point. The proaborts didn't get where they are through compromise. They got abortion on demand through 9 months of pregnancy.
And Bill, there used to be a time, long ago, when I held out for exceptions; only to have the proaborts ask me if I believed my own rhetoric; if it is a human being, as you say, how can you allow murder for those whose conception has not been ideal? This came mostly from college students.
Since you spread yourself so thin, you have no idea what's going on in the trenches. You do not understand this battle.
t
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 17:32
oops, broken links should have pointed to "Pro-Life Rita."
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Wednesday December 6, 2006 17:27
Next time, if there is no 100% Pro-Life candidate, I will write in "Pro-Life Rita."
I'm sorry I missed such a monumental urinating contest. I don't think I would have had much to add, having discovered "Pro-Life Rita" two days after the election - too late to do the right thing. Compromise didn't create Roe vs. Wade, and compromise will probably never overturn it. After all, laws that protect the "right" to abortion have been getting stronger, not weaker, and we have won only symbolic victories over the Culture of Death. If the "intention" of compromise is to eventually end legalized abortion, the "results" from the last 30 years clearly show that compromise simply does not work. We need true pro-lifers on the Supreme Court and the Federal District Courts. We need to see a law or Constitutional Amendment come out of Congress that will end "constructive due process." We are quickly becoming a extraconstitutional oligarchy. Until Congress grows some cojones and impeaches some judges, we will not see an end to judicial activism.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:50
Re: “… I had to go with the better man that could possibly win.”
That's a compromise. See, it's not that hard.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:48
Re: “Haven't you heard ANYTHING I've been saying for the last 3 months?”
This was your “last comment”, and I didn't respond because rhetorical questions are generally considered (by definition) as not soliciting a response.
But my response would be that I've listened to you at least as much as you've listened to me.
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.
Another Leftist Gets Special Treatment
Herb Stoller is a regular writer of letters with a leftist perspective. When he submits one, you'd think the editor would pay special attention to when he had his previous letter published (they do when it's coming from the right), since they see his name frequently. If that's what you thought, you'd be wrong.
If you're a conservative writer, they won't even accept a letter from you if it's been less than thirty days since they published your last letter. I know this because they pull it on me all the time. So how did Stoller get a letter in only twenty-eight days after his last letter which appeared Oct. 2?
I think we all know the answer.
Purge? What Purge?
Ronald LaRock of Pleasant Valley, writes a hysterical exhortation that a “purge [of] people from the voter records” in Ohio “must be checked.”
And what proof that such a purge is taking place does he offer? Absolutely none! Even the Daily Kos, a reliable supporter of Democrat causes, ran an item ‘No truth to Ohio “purge” letters’.
This rumor appears to be just another Democrat dirty trick, meant to frighten minorities away from voting for GOP candidates. A pox on the Poughkeepsie Journal for helping to perpetuate it!
One Day Turnaround! For Sure!
If you're a conservative, the Journal won't allow you to submit a letter until 30 days after your last letter was published. I know this to be true because I've had this rule imposed on my letters on sseveral occasions. They won't even acknowledge your letter until the 30 days have passed.
So how did Bill Griffith of Tivoli get a letter in today's edition? His last letter was published September 19 - only 31 days prior to this letter. That's a 1 day turnaround by my arithmetic.
From John Penney's response below, I know that he's monitoring this page. So John, what say you?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]