Two days ago, I blogged about the abortion funding-by-subterfuge that the Messiah Most Miserable was trying to accomplish in Pennsylvania. Now there's much back-peddling going on.
Well, it now seems that Maryland was caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar - this from Jill Staneck's blog.
Again, fellow Marylanders - this whole sticking cabal is up for re-election in a few months. Be on the lookout for my recommendations. (Reminder - since Faithful Catholics in MD/DC is not a tax-exempt charity, we are not muzzled by those onorous IRS regs).
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Particularly for Pennsylvanians - Regarding Senate Race
Arlen Specter's seat is up for grabs. Remember him? He's the RINO who decided that deep down inside, he was a Democrat after all and switched parties. Hey! At least he was honest. Alas, I understand that he is being challenged in the Democrat primary.
My concern is with the Republican primary. Until now, I was inclined to favor Pat Toomey. Some might remember that six years ago, when he ran against Specter in the primary, he was back-stabbed by both President Bush and Senator Santorum in favor of Specter (who later became a Democrat). I thought he deserved a chance until it was brought to my attention today that had he sat in the Senate, he would have voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor, who has made no secret of pandering after the Messiah Most Miserable. Hear in Toomey's own words.
Listen closely to two of his reasons. First, he says that the Senate owes the President "some due deferance". Not so, Mr. Toomey! The concept of "due deferance" has no place in the Senate confirmation. Rather, what is at play here is "checks and balances" and "division of powers", not "due deferance" which is just another term for "rubberstamp". Second, he states that a criterion of a judge is whether he or she "rules in the ideological mainstream of America". Wrong again. That's another way of saying "go with the flow" - but what determines the "flow" except all kinds of fads and peer-pressure? Rather, what we need are judges who will adhere to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers.
Regretably, I now opine that Patrick Toomey is not worthy of conservative support. I'd suggest that all citizens of Pennsylvania turn their eyes to Peg Luksik instead.
My concern is with the Republican primary. Until now, I was inclined to favor Pat Toomey. Some might remember that six years ago, when he ran against Specter in the primary, he was back-stabbed by both President Bush and Senator Santorum in favor of Specter (who later became a Democrat). I thought he deserved a chance until it was brought to my attention today that had he sat in the Senate, he would have voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor, who has made no secret of pandering after the Messiah Most Miserable. Hear in Toomey's own words.
Listen closely to two of his reasons. First, he says that the Senate owes the President "some due deferance". Not so, Mr. Toomey! The concept of "due deferance" has no place in the Senate confirmation. Rather, what is at play here is "checks and balances" and "division of powers", not "due deferance" which is just another term for "rubberstamp". Second, he states that a criterion of a judge is whether he or she "rules in the ideological mainstream of America". Wrong again. That's another way of saying "go with the flow" - but what determines the "flow" except all kinds of fads and peer-pressure? Rather, what we need are judges who will adhere to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers.
Regretably, I now opine that Patrick Toomey is not worthy of conservative support. I'd suggest that all citizens of Pennsylvania turn their eyes to Peg Luksik instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
