Right now the former Mass Governor who created state controlled health care is leading the GOP polls, but he just turned his back on 50 million Americans! by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Sunday, June 19, 2011
President Obama announced the world that America is not a Christian nation. Mormon Mitt Romney agreed this week when he refused to join the Pro Life wing of the RepublicanParty. Mitt Romney and Herman Cain refused to sing the pledge to end abortions! 50 million Americans have been slaughtered on the abortion table...Mitt doesn't care! He is looking for the moderate vote, for those who don't believe each child, each unborn infant is a gift from God. Mitt has been honest. He won't bring God into the governance of the United States if he is elected. And for me, that's enough to say, I won't vote in November if Romney is the Republican nominee.
There are other problems with Romney. One he enacted the first Obama Care. And while he can say that health care is a state responsibility, not a federal responsibility. For me...that's as wrong as Obama Care. There is no right to health care...but there is a right to life. And Romney won't defend that.
Values are so important. Our nation is confused and chaotic because we surrendered our values. We no longer place great value on the Constitution. We ignore the right to life our ancestors proclaimed! We have surrendered our culture embracing diversity...meaning nothing. Our ancestors left Europe because of the problems and direction of Europe. Today the ruling elite and the two political parties are trying to align us with Europe, and a one world government.
Romney is not the man who can CHANGE the direction of America. He is a white Obama. Yes, he has more experience. Yes as a Republican governor in a blue state he proved he could dance with the devil. He had to compromise with unions, the liberals, and the Democrats. Yes, Romney gets along with the rich. But he wont bring America back to a Christian God. He won't end socialism, he will just package it in a different form and wrap it in different wrapping paper. Romney is just a younger, more articulate, prettier John McCain.
The abortion issue is a great early litmus test. Those who refuse Pro-life demonstratewhere their priorities and what is at their core. Rick Perry's handlers are betting on the Christian core of the party. Perry is conducting a day of prayer. But Rick Perry is not a strong conservative. rick perry has done nothing to protect the border of Texas. He was absent when Arizona stepped forward. The only issue Perry ever fought for, was the TransTexas Corridor, an important infrastructure improvement for globalists. So just aligning with God for the campaign is not enough.
We need a real leader, a real person. We need someone who believes in God and goes tochurch. Someone who actually understands that the office of the president is about America and Americans, not about being the top cop for the world! We need a more isolationist, America - First president. Romney is not it. He is a blue blood who has never been poor. He doesn't struggle for survival. He doesn't know what it means when the economy keeps many of the people in your family under employed, or unemployed. He doesn't know what it means to the younger generation who carry the college loans...they had to take, but never got the jobs that were supposed to be at the end of the rainbow.
Mitt has turned his back on the fifty million souls that never were brought to life. That one decision should tell you all you need to know aboutMitt Romney.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill McGee
Date: June 20, 2011 08:48:48 AM
You fail to state that the compact is excruciatingly restrictive. What about circumstances brought about by rape or incest? What about when the fetus is not viable? What about when the health and/or life of the mother is at risk? What is the standard here? Is a woman who trips and falls, thereby causing her fetus to detach from her uterus, guilty of a crime because she wasn't careful enough? I find it ironic that those folks with the most restrictive definitions of abortion are also those same folks who vote AGAINST funding pre-natal care for mothers in poverty, extended paid leave for new mothers, well-baby care and immunizations, paid leave for mothers with sick children, subsidized childcare, or a minimum wage that allows single mothers to actually house and feed and clothe their children. You want to cut abortion to a trickle? Solve these problems faced by women trying to decide whether to have their baby or continue to put food on the table for the children they already have. They represent that VAST MAJORITY of abortions in this country. Until then, you can pat yourself on the back for your smug platitudes, but you will not prevent a single fetus from being aborted. Your concern for life is transparently thin, as it ends the moment a baby is born. Come back when you have a plan that actually shows the sort of compassion Christ taught.
If the author had an ounce of integrity, the author would acknowledge Romney's stated position abhorring abortion, and anxious to end it. Just because Romney doesn't sign an extreme pledge that doesn't allow choice in the event of rape, incest or other outrageous circumstances (and over which the expectant mother had no control) doesn't mean that he has turned his back on the cause of ending the scourge of abortion in our society.
Ending the 99% plus of abortions that don't involve such issues--as Romney would seek to do--does not remove him from the ranks of those who would do much good...or even from the ranks of Christendom. It saddens me that the author has to rely on deception, venom and sensationalism in a a scurrilous effort to skewer Romney.
And not voting in November? How irresponsible is that? "If you don't play exactly by my rules I'm going to take my ball and go home!" What kind of hollow, empty, and immature response is that? We may have to take our country back by degrees. I am willing to take whatever steps are necessary to move in the correct direction--which may very well mean voting for Romney.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: June 20, 2011 05:32:59 PM
Mark, you should know that not voting because a Republican candidate doesn't pass some litmus test or is even pro-choice will only hand it to the Democratic opponent. Does that really make sense, since the Democratic party is the one of pro-choice? Let's face it, it's the party that has all the power. Am I wrong and, if so, please elaborate.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: June 21, 2011 09:12:37 AM
There is no right to health care
Sure there is. Just like there is a right to write what you please.
You are making the same mistake that liberal nitwits make in talking about rights. You confuse them with government obligations. You have a right to write. Does the governemtn provide you paper? pen? or in today's world, keyboard and T1 line?
No, they do not. They provide you nothing except the freedom to learn how to put words together into the mish-mash of ... monochromatic, one-chord essays you call your political philosophy. And more power to you.
You have a right to health care; it oughta be easy enough to read in the 9thAM. But that does not mean the government provides you with the means to pay for it - which is what Obamacare does. [Obamacare is not health care; it is health coverage.] And it oughta be easy enough to read in the 10thAM that it's the states' business if they choose to make it so.
You claim "values are important", and I agree. Among the values I believe are important is, politically, the Constitution - as it was written, and not as it has been endlessly redefined [interpretted, as loyyers call it] by those with political axes to grind and agendas to push. Personally, my values include never being dishonest in order to push my own agenda.
You rail against abortion like clockwork; what do you have against the Constitution which grants people the freedom to be left the **** alone? And you have expanded the word "kill" to satisfy your personal agenda, and then attempt to shoehorn it back into a legal context where it does not belong after being changed. I understand why you do this, but it is phenomenally dishonest. What sort of values do you consider important?
