Thursday, May 17, 2012

Obomney - Our "Choice" For President

I haven't posted much about the presidential race in the past couple of months because I have just found it too depressing.  As always, we are given a choice between two men who are, in all important respects, a carbon copy of each other.  The media and the talking heads will tell us that there are great differences between the two, but when you scratch beneath the surface, you find that the differences are merely cosmetic. 

The lack of choice in the 2012 presidential election is nothing new.  We are always voting for candidates who says they will make "real changes."  Then they get into office and everything stays the same.  Witness all those new Republicans who were voted into office in 2010 and told us they were going to "take the country back."  Seen any changes?  I sure haven't.   The economy continues to spiral out of control.  We've added another trillion dollars to the debt, we are into even more wars, Obama signs executive orders that allow him to literally confiscate everything we have and put us into forced labor, the president tramples all over religious freedom - and nary a peep from our "activist" Republicans.  The key issue for me - abortion, the taking of innocent and defenseless life in the womb - isn't even touched by the Republicans, even though they all say they are pro life.  They tell us there are too many other "important" issues.


Now our choice for Republican presidential candidate is Mitt Romney, who was adamantly pro choice until he decided he wanted to run for president. Then he underwent a "conversion" when, he tells us, he realized just how terrible abortion is.  Now he has announced to the world that he is pro life, against abortion.

Back a few years ago when Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts, this is what he said (from thinkprogress.org:)
I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate,” he said then. “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.”
At the time, Romney explained his support for abortion rights by pointing to a personal experience.
“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me,” he said. “One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”
The article goes on:
During his 1994 campaign, Romney said the question of Medicaid abortion funding should be left to the states and “endorsed the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug, and appeared in June at a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood. Ann Romney gave the group $150.” In 2001, Romney — eying higher office after his success at the Olympics — initially objected to a newspaper editorial describing him as “pro-choice”, but as a gubernatorial candidate “expressed support for Medicaid funding for the procedure, efforts to expand access to emergency contraception, and the restoration of state funding for family-planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs.”
No, Romney wouldn't waver on his pro choice position UNTIL he decided to run for president on the Republican ticket.  Then he suddenly became aware of how terrible abortion is and did one of the neatest flip flips seen in political history.

We fast forward to the present time.  Our president has now come out in full force for same sex marriage.  Barack Obama has put the stamp of approval on sodomy and now it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.  How has Mitt Romney responded?  Well, he is not for same sex marriage, but he has no problem whatsoever with homosexual couples adopting children and exposing the children to this perverted lifestyle. 

All you conservative Republicans, and especially you Catholics out there who think you have a real choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama - think again!  For an example of the vast "difference" between Obama and Romney, see the article below on Romney's views towards homosexuals adopting children.

Romney Says He's 'Fine' With Gay Couples Adopting Children 


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on Thursday that while he opposes same-sex marriage, he is “fine” with gay couples adopting children. The presumptive nominee also declined to criticize President Obama’s reversal on the issue, saying he would “respect the right of the president to reach the conclusion he has.”  [Romney will not even speak out against Obama endorsing same sex marriage.  Silence can sometimes speak volumes]
In his most detailed comments to date on the issue of civil rights for gay people, Romney told Fox News host Neil Cavuto, “I know many gay couples that are able to adopt children. That’s fine. But my preference is that we ... continue to define marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman.”  [Not exactly a resounding condemnation of Obama's endorsement of same sex marriage.  Don't want to offend the gay voters out there, do we!] 
The statement seemed to put Romney in the position of condoning same-sex families with children as long as the parents do not marry.  [Well, it's his "preference" that same sex couples not marry, anyway.] 

And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.”  [Notice how he keeps using the words "in my view."  He does not categorically state as a matter of moral law that homosexual marriage is wrong.  That leaves the door open for his "view" to change, whenever it may be convenient for him.  Right now, for the foreseeable future, Mitt Romney sees homosexuals adopting children as fine - which is in complete opposition to Catholic Church teaching - but it's his "view" that calling this homosexual relationship "marriage" is crossing the line.  But who knows when Romney will feel it's time to move that line.]

Obama on Wednesday said he was in favor of same-sex marriage after months of saying his views on the matter were “evolving.” During his campaign for president in 2008, and as a candidate for the Senate in 2004, Obama said he opposed gay marriage. [Hmmm, same thing Mitt Romney is saying now.]

After declining to comment on the president’s reversal, Romney told Cavuto, “This is an issue where you can’t really convince someone about. It’s something where you either believe one way or the other. It’s very much like the issue of life. [All you pro life people out there, take note!  Mitt Romney is giving ample warning that he cannot be counted on to support you.  You have been warned.]  And we come down on different sides of this issue after giving it careful thought and consideration. I respect the right of the president to reach the conclusion he has [Is anyone hearing this?!] , and I presume he respects my right to hold to the position that I’ve had from the beginning of this topic being raised.”

Asked whether he would be at a disadvantage politically if gays galvanize behind Obama’s reelection campaign, Romney said, “Hopefully, people are focusing on the major issues of the day [this is such an unimportant issue - why is anyone even paying attention to it?  It only affects the survival of the family.], which relate to our economy, getting people back to work, dealing with Syria.... But I know for many people, the issue of marriage is going to be a defining issue, and they will make their decision on that basis. That is their right. [But please don't bother Mitt Romney with this "unimportant" issue]  But you don’t change your position to try to win states or certain subgroups of Americans. You have the positions you have, and you know, for a long time, I think since the beginning of my career, I have made it very clear that I thought that marriage should be a relationship between a man and a women.”  [But it's perfectly fine with Mitt to allow children into a perverted relationship as long as you don't call it marriage.]
I wonder if all those people who tell us we have a choice in this election are listening to this.  What choice do we have?  The lesser of two evils?  I don't even see that anymore.  The biggest problem is that it doesn't matter what candidates say when they are running for president.  They have shown us over and over that they cannot be held to their word.  Once they are in office, they are going to do whatever strikes their fancy or whatever they are told to do by the real powers. 

I'm through with politics.  It's a false messiah.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...