Archive for January, 2012

I have to say, last night’s debate in SC is the first one I have actually enjoyed. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that it drives me up the wall when a question is addressed to all of the candidates, and only half of them are allowed to answer before they move on to the next question. Maybe. That said, it must be easier when there are only four of them, because they actually did a good job of it last night.

Now then. I like Santorum and Paul. I thought Romney was oily four years ago, and still do. Gingrich… just rubs me the wrong way, aside from the fact that I don’t really trust him. He’s witty, sure, and seems to be a great “debator” – but they elected the last President merely because he could “speak like a president,” and look where that got us.

Anyway. Santorum premuch went after Gingrich and Romney, for the most part focusing any attacks entirely on them. But he and Paul did get into a lively exchange about abortion when Santorum pointed out that Paul only got a 50% rating from some group that looks at how politicians have voted on legislation, etc regarding pro-life endeavors.

(To which my father chimed up in the background, “That doesn’t necessarily mean anything; it all depends on what was attached to said legislation.” Hear, hear!)

So, they basically went roundy-round about federal pro-life laws versus state pro-life laws and whose jurisdiction it technically falls under, and such. Santorum fell on the side of federal, and Paul, as usual, fell on the side of state, arguing that abortion is a violent crime, and we already let states have jurisdiction when it comes to handling other violent crimes, such as murder or burglary.

I found the whole exchange interesting, especially when it was pointed out that law follows morality, not the other way around. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a politician argue that you have to change the heart if you ever have a hope of changing the law, although I have heard it on many a pro-life website…

Anyway. I came across this in my RSS feed today, and after watching Santorum’s incredulity over Paul’s remarks last night, I’m a bit incredulous myself.

Santorum attacked Paul at CNN debate for leaving abortion to states, but look what he said in 2003…

The Daily Paul only excerpts his last paragraph, but if you click through, you can read the whole interview.

Back then, he argued that things like sodomy and abortion were states’ issues rather than federal ones. ‘If they want it in their state, they can have it… in their state,’ basically.

…what changed, Rick?

Edited to add:

For those of you who may have missed the debate but would like to catch up on it, I believe you can find it at CNN.com.


Read Full Post »

It’s really rather unfortunate that these two don’t seem to like each other, since I would consider them my “top two” at the moment. I mean, I disagree with both of them on aspects of their foreign policy (which seems slightly ironic, I suppose, since they are at pretty opposite ends of the spectrum on this)… but when it comes to moral issues, I’m pretty sure I can get behind them.

I still think Paul has Santorum (or any other candidate) beat, hands-down, when it comes to Constitutional issues and abiding by our founding documents, but I don’t know that I agree with bringing home 100% of our troops. The ones in obscure countries that we’ve had bases at arbitrarily since WWII? Heck, yes. Bring them home. You can gather intelligence without the bureacracy and taxpayer-funded bases there.

Israel? I’m not sure where I stand there, as a Christian, reflecting on God’s promises, and whether they still apply to the “nation” of Israel as such in modern times, etc. I mean, there are verses that touch on a blessing for those who bless Israel, etc, but… modern day Israel is a 20th century creation. You certainly can’t argue that America was blessed as a nation because they’ve “supported Israel” when, hey, America’s been in a downward spiral since before the new Israel decided to plop itself down on the map, ye ken?

I certainly don’t side with Bachmann on the Israel thing (although I like her for certain other stances). The girl’s got such a crazed look in her eyes when she talks about them that makes me wonder… if Israel jumped off a bridge, would you, too, Michelle? Like I said, I’m just not sure I can jump on the whole “Israel is God’s Nation” bandwagon, because I haven’t studied the promises enough to know if I believe that they still apply to Israel as a nation or if God’s focus is the body of Christ, ie, Christians, when it comes to that sort of things these days. (All my non-Christian friends are probably scratching their heads and saying, “Wha–?” right now thanks to my lapse into Christianese, and for that I apologize.) I mean, Jews used to circumcise to identify themselves as followers of God’s law, and we don’t culturally do THAT any mo– oh, wait. Yeah, we do. Except that modern circumcision is a far, far cry beyond what Biblical circumcision was ever meant to be… which I wish I had known before giving birth to a son, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. Suffice to say, Biblical circumcision was never the practice that we know it as today. (Can I just state now that that is NOT a topic I ever thought I would be discussing on my blog?)

Moving right along…

Foreign aid? Heck, yeah. Cut it. I disagree with Santorum on this one. I don’t think our bureaeucracy needs to be taking money from its citizens to give to other bureaucrats who are then supposed to give it to their citizenry. A) it never gets to the people it’s supposed to, b) let us choose where we want our money to go in the first place.

Anyway… I am equal parts distraught over their dislike for each other (because I would have loved to see the two of them together on a ticket) and amused by the attempts to point out why the other “might not be as pro-life as they seem.”

Read the article here: Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News

“Ooooh, you voted once FOR a bill that provided for money to go to Planned Parenthood!”   …even though the money was specifically not supposed to go to abortions. (I’m not saying I LIKE that he voted for it, I’m just pointing that out.

“Ooooh, you voted AGAINST legislation that would have provided for it to be a federal offense for the injury of an unborn child in a violent crime!”  …yes, because he supported that the amendment should provide that an unborn child is a PERSON, but believed that enforcement of said amendment should be left up to the government of the states rather than to the Feds.

Boys, boys. Let’s calm down. You’re all so used to pointing fingers that you can’t even tell when you are actually allies on an issue! Now, Romney… go ahead. Point fingers there. The guy was proudly pro-choice until he decided to run for president in ’08… and that was unfashionable, so he had to change his mind. Just like he’s changed it about everything else he’s ever stood for. I’m surprised he can agree with himself on his own name, when it comes down to it…

Oh, and did you hear? McCain is endorsing Romney.

…what? This IS my surpised face!

Read Full Post »

That’s my quote of the year. Well, okay, it’s only fourth day of 2012, but… it’s a resounding one, is it not?

I’ve also heard that called “mama Grizzly mode”…

Read it here: Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It’s Okay to Shoot – ABC News

Silly ol’ 2nd Amendment.

Read Full Post »

…and focus instead on those nasty food activists.

What? I’m just trying to toe the line that our federal government is drawing in the sand.

Read it for yourself: Food Knowledge Is Now Terrorism

This makes me want to pursue a CSA membership and a larger garden all the more. Because at least then you know what’s going into and onto your food. *le sigh*

H/T: Rudy @ Preparing Your Family

Read Full Post »