SantorumBlog

This kind of garbage must be paid attention to, because not challenging evil people like Dan Savage and the moonbats of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos hurt Senator Santorum, since it gave their lies credibility. You can’t just ignore these people - you have to defeat them.

Cliff Bostock is a typical example of a Santorum-hater, though unique in that he is apparently a PhD in psychology. Let’s pray to God that he is not actually practicing psychology, and if he is, may God have mercy on his patients. Here is what he had to say about the election of Bob Casey:

“It’s unseemly to engage in schadenfreude, the German term for taking delight in the misfortune of others. But what special pleasure, watching Rick Santorum get his ass kicked. Now, he’ll be able to divorce his wife and marry his (male) dog without fear of political repercussions. You know he’s into inter-species sex, right? George Bush told me so. He never lies.”

This is what passes for political discourse on the left today. The more outrageous, the more hate-filled, the more obviously false the statement the better - and yet the far-left eats it up like it’s the Gospel Truth. While they weren’t as vulgar, you could find letters which were just as hateful and just as filled with lies in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette every day leading up to the election.

I keep hearing from the far-left that Senator Santorum is somehow obsessed with sex, but they’re the ones who continue to obsess over his remarks from three years ago, which they succeeded in completely changing the meaning of and used to demonize the man.

Now that their boogeyman Santorum has been beaten, the far-left continues to push for radical changes in society. The Catholic Church recently repeated its 2,000 year old unchangeable dogma that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual acts are always sins. The far-left responded by calling the Catholic church intolerant, ignorant, anti-science, demeaning, and various other nonsense. Not only that, but the far-left is not even being honest about this dogma - they’re calling it “new guidelines” when this has been Catholic social teaching since the dawn of the church.

This is just like the far-left’s claims that Americans being religious people is something “new”, or that a President of the United States talking about religion is something “new”, or that people should have personal responsibility is something “new”. Of course none of these are new ideas, but you have to lie and claim that they’re new in order to present the social norms themselves as being radical.

In fact, the dishonest attacks on the Catholic church prove that the far-left doesn’t just want our government to change - they want our society to change at its very core, with any and all religious or moral teachings which they personally disagree with being done away with forever.

The message to the Republican Party is clear - reclaim your conservative roots or be condemned to minority status for decades.

The Republicans must immediately begin to convincingly work for the conservative principles which they promised to support when they got elected. As Michael Savage says, Borders, Language, Culture. Republicans had four years to secure the borders - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to make English America’s official language - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to get the garbage in the media out of our children’s faces - they didn’t do it. Republicans had four years to cut government spending - they didn’t do it.

The result of these failures, combined with the failure to fight back against liberal partisanship and lies, was the bloodbath we saw on Tuesday. President Bush is called every despicable name imaginable every single day, and what does he do about it? He laughs it off. That’s all well and good for Bush, but when he doesn’t go out and explain how he is being slandered, people start to believe those lies. It’s exactly the same with Senator Santorum.

I am optimistic that most Republicans will get the message and clean up their acts. They have two years starting now to prove to America that they’re sorry for breaking their promises, and that they’re now serious about supporting conservative values - which are American values.

I hate to break it to the moonbats who inexplicably continue to troll on this blog and post asinine comments, but America didn’t reject conservatism on Tuesday. America’s conservatives rejected the non-conservative actions of the Republican Party by sitting this election out.

Most Americans want lower taxes. Most Americans want to cut government spending. Most Americans want restrictions on abortion. Most Americans want to secure the borders. As George Will wrote, this election was a defeat for Republicans - not a defeat for conservatism.

Be honest with yourselves, moonbats. You just elected Bob Casey, a man who says he’s pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-embryonic stem cell research and pro-gun. Does it sound like you just voted against the “Christian fascists”?

Seven states voted to ban gay marriage on Tuesday. Only one state in which a ban was proposed did it fail - Arizona - and it failed by the slimmest margin. And that’s with the Republicans staying home! So much for the “AmTaliban” being repudiated.

Democrats win elections by pretending to be conservative. Republicans lost this election by not being conservative enough. The Republican Party must embrace conservatism for victory in 2008!

Down below in the comments, extremist, anti-God liberals are telling us that the voters rejected religious leaders.

Newsflash, liberals: You ran a guy who was pretending to be a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Catholic against a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Catholic. Religion wasn’t an issue. Of course Casey, now that he’s elected, can break every promise he made and just go ahead and vote for abortion like we know he’s going to do, but the average voter of PA wasn’t aware of that, and didn’t care.

The main reason for this Republican defeat is an anti-Republican sentiment resulting from reckless Republican spending and the unpopular Iraq War. Period.

The proof is that gay marriage bans are passing by wide margins all over the nation tonight. Unfortunately for we Republicans, however, America is just seriously ticked off at the Republican Party right now.

Ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi says that she wants to take America back from the “radical right-wing”. Of course, to Pelosi, the “radical right-wing” consists of people who think that we should have some limits on abortion, such as parental notification or a ban on partial-birth abortion. It consists of people who think that voluntary school prayer - free speech - might not be such a bad thing. It consists of people who don’t have a problem with the Ten Commandments hanging in a courtroom or a schoolhouse, because they understand that the Ten Commandments being on the wall doesn’t hurt anyone. It consists of people who think that if you lower taxes, people can keep more of their own money, and then invest that money to result in great federal tax revenues. It consists of people who want judges who obey the law instead of inventing the law.

In the final days of his campaign, Bob Casey chose to spend his time with the House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi wants to be the Speaker of the House, which would make her third in line for the Presidency and give her a great deal more power in our government. In short, this would be a disaster for our nation and for the world.

Nancy Pelosi wants to force her San Francisco values on the entire nation. And no, that’s not just gay marriage, though nearly every state in the Union opposes gay marriage but she would force it on us all anyway.

-It’s also extreme taxation. Taxation which seeks to punish people for being successful, slowing or even reversing our current economic growth. This is America; we don’t punish success here, Pelosi!

-It’s also socialized health care, which gives everyone in a country access to the same pathetic, worthless treatment, but as Pelosi might say, at least it’s free! It’s not exactly “free” since our money will be stolen through taxation to pay for it, but it’s similar to something that is free because we would get what we were paying for. We would have long waits and short visits at the doctor’s office, and rarely would we ever actually see a doctor - instead we’d see an assistant. The quality of American health care would drop dramatically, but Pelosi would be happy, since everyone would be “covered” and taxes would be sky high.

-It’s also taxpayer funded abortion. For years, the pro-choice people have said that we need to stay out of their personal, private decisions. Dishonest liberal like Pelosi, however, aren’t satisfied now that they have legalized abortion on demand. Making complete hypocrites of themselves, they now demand that the American taxpayer fund abortions. We are to be forced to fund something which we will not be allowed to regulate, and the tax dollars of pro-lifers will be used to pay for killing unborn children, with pro-lifers no doubt being called “right wing radicals” if they object.

-It’s the support of judicial activists who think that the Constitution is a living document which changes - and conveniently, it changes according to the personal ideology of the judicial activist. The US Constitution can only be changed by Amendment. Amendments are voted on by Congress. Judges do not and should never have had the power to change the US Constitution, but if Pelosi gets her way, there will be more and more liberal activists on our courts.

-It’s also a hatred of our military and the great liberating work it has done. The politicians of San Francisco despise our troops, and work to undermine and insult them at every turn. Their plan for the war on Islamic fascism is to have a full retreat and then apologize to Osama bin Laden for making him mad. Pelosi would hand the Islamic fascists their greatest victory of all time by surrendering to them Iraq.

Bob Casey and Nancy Pelosi - “Vote Democrat”… if you want higher taxes, socialism, an end to religious freedom, activist judges who legislate from the bench, taxpayer funded abortion, and a policy of surrender in the war on Islamic fascism

Popular Christian musician Michael W. Smith has made a radio ad in support of Senator Rick Santorum. I just heard it broadcast on WPGB 104.7 FM in Pittsburgh.

Smith recently wrote the following about Santorum on his website:

“Weeks ago….actually months ago I was able to find a date on my calendar to go to Pennsylvania to campaign with, support and encourage my good friend Senator Rick Santorum. Rick is an amazing guy and one of the finest individuals ever to serve our country on Capitol Hill. I believe in him as a candidate and more important as a brother in Christ.”

So much for the talking point that Evangelicals are abandoning the conservatives. Don’t be fooled by the media!

I wish the far-left would make up its mind - do they want Rick Santorum to be a theocrat, or do they want to eliminate any religious ideas from government?

Daily Kos: The Song of Santorum

The Kos kid tells us that Santorum is not a real Catholic because:

-Businessmen support Santorum because he’s a capitalist
-Unions oppose Santorum because he’s a capitalist
-Santorum opposes socialism because he’s a capitalist

In other words, the argument is that economic conservatives can’t be real Catholics. You must support socialist economic policies to truly live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Nevermind that not once in the any of the Gospels did Jesus say that it was Caesar’s job to help the poor. According to Jesus, who is responsible for helping the poor? Is it George Bush? Is it John Kerry?

No. According to Jesus, YOU are responsible for helping the poor. Every single person must make their own personal choice to help the poor. This is called “charity”. Charity is voluntary, unlike socialism. Socialism is forced and it breeds hatred between the classes. It also ignores the fact that some people are just more productive than others, and it slows their production down, hurting the economy and decreasing tax revenues.

Liberals who calls themselves Catholic like to say that capitalism is in violation of the Commandment not to covet your neighbor’s property. However, which economic system is inherently covetous? Capitalism is about working hard and succeeding; not necessarily about being envious of anyone. Socialism, on other hand, is inherently about taking away what “the rich” have and forcing them to give it to “the poor” until everyone has the same amount of everything. While envy can be and often is involved in capitalism, is it not the central tenet of capitalism as it is with socialism. Socialism for the sake of socialism is both envy and theft, in violation of the Commandments.

Liberals like to say that we practicing Catholics only care about money since we support economic freedom. Nevermind that Catholics like Santorum are extremely charitable, living according to what Jesus actually taught instead of the Gospel According to George Soros.

Sure, we need the government to help the poorest among us, and most importantly, help them no longer be poor. That’s what Rick Santorum is working to do. But for far-left fake Catholics like this Kos kid, the federal government’s economic power needs to be expanded so much that we practically become a Communist country. That’s the only way to achieve their version of “social justice”.

Ridiculously, one of the Kos kids says in reply to this entry, “In my considered opinion the right wing groups in the church, including those in the hierarchy, are destroying the Church I love.”

That must be the pro-abortion, anti-marriage, pro-cloning, pro-theft, anti-truth, anti-God Church he loves.

Lost Bobby Casey just loves dangerous over-priced Short Term State health insurance for children and ends his debates with Children Insurance sound bites, exactly like all Democrats from coast to coast.  (They want your children)

   Losing your child’s health insurance can be deadly.

Rendell should just drop out of this campaign.  Rendell could say he had a mild stroke or heart attack and everybody would believe that.  Look at him!!

Rendell signed the dangerous “Cover All Kids” state insurance for Pennsylvania children.  Now, federal taxpayers (Me) will be paying $143 a month to Blue Cross or UPMC for “Short Term” health insurance on Pennsylvania children (If their parents are “OFFERED” a group-employer-based-health-insurance) and pay OVER 600% more than the real cost of coverage with the security of portable INDIVIDUAL HSA Qualifying Health insurance on a child (from America’s oldest health insurance company) in Pittsburgh.  This is too pathetic.  Why are taxpayers paying 600% too much just to put Pennsylvania children in danger?

I talked with Rosanne Placey (717-787-3289) who Rendell lists as the “Contact” for his “Kid Ploy.”  I asked Rendell’s Spokesperson, “If a child gets cancer or breaks their neck at 18 years of age, will their “Cover All Kids” health insurance be terminated when they turn 19 years old?”  Rosanne said, “They Age-Out.”  I said, “My question is a yes or no question.  If a child gets cancer at 18 will they have their state insurance cancel at 19 years of age?”  Rosanne said, “They Age-Out.”  These people are scam artists.

A 30-year-old couple can put their child on HSA Health insurance for $23 a month that the child can keep if they get sick or hurt as a minor.  The whole family (30 year-old couple plus 1 child) can get insurance for $98 a month.  The State should pay the $98 for the [[family’s health insurance]] and then put $44 every month in the families HSA for 1^st dollar coverage for medical, vision and dental expenses.  This way the State saves $1 below the price of paying Blue Cross for just ONE child ($143) with “Cover All Kids”.

Why won’t Rendell pay for private insurance on parents who work for small employers who don’t offer coverage to employees?  Why won’t the State pay for PRIVATE insurance for the self employed?  Why, because Blue Cross wouldn’t like that and the Blues have Rendell on a short lease and always have.  Rendell is like a poodle.
       
It would be easier for Rendell to fake a heart attack and quit than try and explain this corruption after the election.  Putting the children of the Commonwealth in DANGER just to pander to Blue Cross is an indefensible position for Red Rendell in the future.

Vote for sanity / Vote Swann and Santorum

Cross-Posted at Swannblog

Today I received the following letter in the mail from a fellow Pittsburgh Catholic:

Dear Catholic Voter,

This is a rather unusual letter and a first for me.

Tuesday, November 7 is a most important Election Day for the innocent, unborn child.

This election will strongly affect the selection of Supreme Court Justices who will decide life and death issues for many years to come.

As you know, this Senate race is between Rick Santorum, the highest ranking pro-life leader in the U.S. Senate verses Bob Casey who has the support of Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (now NARAL Pro-Choice) and other pro-abortion groups.

There are also organizations called Catholics For Free Choice and Catholics in Alliance For The Common Good who minimize the killing of unborn babies as “only one issue”.

But without life and without a strong defender of life in the U.S. Senate, other issues mean little.

If you do not vote at all in this Senate race on Tuesday it will be a vote against the unborn chlid.

It is vitally important that you vote.

I personally ask that you vote for Senator Rick Santorum on Tuesday, November 7.

Thank you.

Today I received the following email from Fr. Frank Pavone, M.E.V. of Priests for Life:

Dear Friends,

Yes, I’m motivated about next week’s election. Before I share with you my column on that and an encouraging article, let me alert you to some important action you can take:

Today begins the final nine days of our 18-week Novena of Prayer for the Elections. Please sign up at www.PrayerCampaign.org to download the prayer. You will also see a special prayer there for each of the states in which there is a special ballot initiative!

This week is critical for mobilizing people to take action, especially in the distribution of literature about the candidates. Please contact John at our office at vote@priestsforlife.org if you are able to help distribute literature, especially next weekend, and he’ll help connect you with the groups that are doing it.

Speaking of candidates, you’ll find that we have posted some candidate information at www.priestsforlife.org/candidates. You may download and print out any of that information that would be helpful. Duplicating it is fine.

As you can imagine, we are getting near the end of our supply of our own booklet “Voting with a Clear Conscience.” Last minute orders can be sent to orders@priestsforlife.org, and we’ll rush them as the supply lasts. But you can also download the booklet at www.priestsforlife.org/vote/voting-clear-conscience.pdf. As with all our products, this booklet relies on original sources. We’re bringing you the words of the Pope and bishops just as they wrote them.

Another way to help people prepare for Election Day is to invite them to watch my homily on the EWTN televised Mass on this Friday, November 3. The Mass airs at 8am (ET), 12pm, 7pm and midnight. For more information see www.ewtn.com, where it can also be heard online. Please promote this to your lists, because I’ll be delivering a practical and powerful election message.

Not only are we getting the election message out on TV and radio, but we’ve put video messages on the internet at “Youtube.” One thing you can do is to help us spread these messages. Here are the links and a sample email you can send to your list:

Election 2006 - 5 Minute Spot
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e4u2K53mLA

Election 2006 - Christian Duty - 30 Second Spot
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RlLQbaBCQ

Election 2006 - No Separation of Church and State - 30 Second Spot
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a8Cvb1eAgM

SAMPLE E-MAIL
————————————————————————
Dear Friend,

I want to share a special election video with you. The following links to an election related video featuring Fr. Frank Pavone.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e4u2K53mLA

“Christians aren’t second class citizens, we aren’t supposed to just sit on the sidelines and watch somebody else elect the people who will make the laws by which we will all have to abide. Help get this message to friends and family by sending them one or all of these links.” - Fr. Frank Pavone

Thank You,
(your name)
—————————————————————————

Why I’m Voting Pro-life, and Motivated

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Election Day is approaching, and I’m motivated to vote and to influence many other votes. I’m motivated because voting is part of what I need to do to fulfill my life’s dream - a dream shared by many others -that abortion, the biggest holocaust the human family has ever known, will cease.

Some, even in the Church, don’t seem to get the fact that there’s no problem in society bigger than abortion. But then again, when it’s constantly celebrated by many others as a Constitutional right, and when we don’t read the descriptions or see the pictures, it’s easy for abortion’s horror to escape us.

I’m motivated to vote, not because one election will end abortion, and certainly not because I expect our elected officials to be perfect or to do my work for me. The People of God have to do the work of ending abortion - providing alternatives, educating minds, changing hearts, changing laws. But part of that work is electing the people who will pose the least obstacle to that mission. We don’t elect people to do our work for us, but rather people who will let us do our own work. So often it’s a choice between those who will do the least damage, or permit the fewer numbers of abortions. It may be a choice between those willing to permit all abortions or those willing at least to draw some lines at where it should stop. I’d rather have the line-drawers, because when it comes time for the lines to become laws, at least they won’t stand in the way. I don’t look for the perfect candidate, but when I have a choice between a mess and a messier mess, I choose the mess.

I’m motivated, because we’ve made progress. We have two solid new Justices on the Supreme Court who don’t believe in inventing new rights from “penumbras” -and just like in 2004, the Supreme Court is at stake again. If there’s a vacancy in the next two years, the President needs a Senate that will confirm good Justices. We have lots of other new federal judges, who understand the limits of judicial authority. And we have new laws that bring us closer to the protection of the unborn, like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the first ban on an abortion procedure since Roe vs. Wade, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

So now it’s a numbers game. We have to spend our time and energy not convincing the one stubborn person, but reminding the many who will listen, if we simply nudge them a little and tell them who the best candidates are. We should go for the “low-hanging fruit,” those easiest to mobilize. And we should vote early. Many states allow voting before Election Day. Let’s get others to vote early, so that unforeseen circumstances don’t stop them from voting later.

The polls don’t determine elections; the people who show up at the polling places do. Let’s bring them out!

Remember to support our work at www.priestsforlife.org/donate

This column can be found online at
www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-11-06motivated.htm

Comments on this column? Email us at mail@priestsforlife.org, Priests for Life,
PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax:
718-980-6515; web: www.priestsforlife.org

This column can be listened to online in MP3 format at
www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/index.htm

This column can be heard via podcast. See www.priestsforlife.org/podcast for
more details.

October 27, 2006

Two Very Different Ways to Look at This Election

Posted by JOHN MCINTYRE

In 2004, there was a lot of talk about whether pollsters were correct to use traditional “likely voter” screens in their samples or whether a less restrictive “registered voter” model would turn out to be more accurate given the massive increases in voter registrations we saw posted all over the country. There’s not much discussion of the subject at all this cycle, perhaps due to the fact that it’s a midterm and not a presidential year, but it comes to mind because of the conflicting signals in this election and trying to get at just who is going to vote Nov. 7.

In some ways there are two very different ways to look at what is going to happen on election day.

1) Republicans are in big trouble. The generic ballot shows a huge lead for Democrats (over 15%) with fewer than 10 days until the election. Republicans in contested races are either trailing or polling in the mid-40’s, and given the national mood toward the GOP as seen in the generic ballot, it is reasonable to assume that these races will break for the Democrats. With the close races tipping the Democrats way they are poised for substantial pickups in the House of 25 seats or more and perhaps the six seats needed for a majority in the Senate.

2)The generic ballot is problematic and is over sampling Democrats, pushing the raw numbers higher for the Dems than they should be. Trying to use the generic ballot to predict who will then win x, y and z house races is a jump that can’t be made soundly. In 2004 the voter turnout was 60% of eligible voters. In 2002 and 1998 in the two previous midterms it was 40%. What if a significant number of that 15%-20% who aren’t going to show up at the polls this year come from soft voters in the middle? These are the exact group of voters that are helping drive the big polling numbers for Democrats. What if they don’t show up in these contested races at the same proportion they are representing in many of these polls? Following this line of thinking, it is possible the bulk of the races that the polls now say are close will actually go to the GOP because the pollsters aren’t sampling a representative field of who will actually vote in the contested races.

Simplifying things dramatically, the first view is essentially the one taken by Charlie Cook, and it’s why he is out forecasting a 20-35 seat pickup for the Dems in the House and a very good shot for them to take the Senate. The second view is the one taken by Karl Rove, which is why he believes the GOP will hold both chambers, losing less than 15 seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate.

Both of these scenarios are logical, possible, and have empirical data to support their positions. The harder question is determining which reasoning will prove to be more powerful. Right now, when we drill down and look at the individual races to see where each contest is heading the data, at least in the Senate, appears to be trending toward the Rove position. The question is: will this movement in the Senate toward the GOP hold and will the House turn the same way?

Priests for Life Newsletter
Volume 16, Number 6
November-December 2006

Election Day - November 7

Whether you are reading this before or after Election Day, please be sure to visit our website www.politicalresponsibility.com for critical information about the midterm elections!

Before and on Nov. 7, please vote and to get as many other people as possible to vote! Visit, Call and email your friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners, and get them to the polls! Take the day off on Election Day and work to get pro-life candidates elected! The results of Tuesday’s elections will impact how quickly we can restore protection to the unborn!

ZERO. That’s the number of Churches that have lost their tax-exempt status by urging people to vote, helping them get to the polls, and teaching them that Christians are to vote as Christians, evaluating candidates by their fidelity to God’s law, starting with the protection of life!

“At all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

– Second Vatican Council: Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), n.76.