Saturday, October 24, 2009
Here's Newt's Rationale for Supporting Dede Scuzzball in New York! Do You Agree?
All right, I can understand Newt's opinion from the point of view of party politics. But let's consider a bigger question. When a candidate's views conflict with a no-compromise moral issue like child-killing, does Newt's rationale fly? No, the party cannot be big enough to encompass advocates of child murder any more than it should encompass white supremicists who support lynching blacks. Do you think Newt would endorse such a candidate? Heck no!
But essentially that's what he's doing by endorsing Scozzafava. Abortion is black genocide. More blacks die from abortion than all other causes put together. They are murdered at a much higher rate than other races and a new documentary produced by Life Dynamics makes the case that abortion was developed for exactly that reason - to eliminate the black race.
The Republican party should not compromise on child-killing. Nor should it compromise on the destruction of marriage. What's wrong with having a few defining issues? The Democrats have them. They make legalized child-killing a banner issue waving the bloody flag with pride. Speaking of pride, that's another defining issue for them -- the right to sodomy and same-sex marriage. So why not make those two issues the banner issues that define the difference between the lavendar/pinko democrats and the red, white, and blue Republicans.
Only one problem. The Rockefellar Republicans are the very ones who supported abortion to solve the "black problem." Remember, it was Rockefeller who vetoed the law in New York overturning their permissive abortion law before Roe v. Wade mandated abortion nationwide. Rockefeller saw abortion as a population control tool to limit minorities and poor white trailer trash. The country club elites in the party will never let abortion go even as they pay lip service to their pro-life plank.
So pray for Doug Hoffman and thank him for running against Dede Scuzzball. You can visit his website here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We need a party of principle and not of personalities. The failure here is the failure to have principles that you stick to or the pro-abortion candidate would not have been nominated.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether it is possible to get to a party of principle or if this is merely an unrealistic dream.
We live in a society that is collapsing into decadence and has lost its bearings. Newt's reaction is politics as usual, but the point he's making is real. Third party candidates simply split the vote and often ensure the success of the left if the vote that is split is the Republican vote. So which is worse?
We need to move the party to be a party of principle. Failing that we'll have the unprincipled regardless of the flag they fly.
Newt is a RINO -- I did a post on Devvy Kidd, where she featured him (see highlight halfway down the post):
ReplyDeletehttp://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/communism-in-the-us-the-oh-so-conventional-destruction/
Thanks and keep up the great work!
It's obvious that those of us who support life will never be able to support the Democrats......and the Republican party is iffy.
ReplyDeleteThe current political wisdom is that support of a third party would only insure that Democrats stay in power. However, many seem to forget that the Republican party was once a lowly third party.
The time may come - sooner rather than later- to completely abandon the Republicans and build a third party from the ground up.