Pro Lifers Snubbed By Romney

There are more people now who are seriously questioning Gov. Mitt Romney's "pro life" credentials.  We know that he was adamantly pro choice when he ran against Senator Ted Kennedy back in the 90's and again when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002.  He said he would never waiver on his support of a woman's "right to choose."  That is, he would never waiver until he decided to run on the Republican ticket for president, and then he suddenly had an epiphany about the evils of abortion.

I have posted here a questionnaire that Gov. Romney filled out in 2002, just 10 years ago, for Planned Parenthood in which he clearly states his support for abortion.  As you can see, he says yes to Roe v. Wade, and says he supports abortions being paid through Medicare. 

Massresistance.org tells us exactly what this questionnaire says:

Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts
Candidate Questionnaire 2002

1. Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

2. Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

3. Would you vote to support legislation that would require insurers that provide prescription coverage for other drugs to prescription coverage for contraceptives? I want to first evaluate the cost of this program before I commit to supporting it.

4. Reproductive health care facilities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been targets of blockades, disturbances, and violence. This past legislative session a bill passed that would increase safety measures at reproductive health care facilities by providing a 6-foot bubble zone around patients and staff with an 18-foot radius of the building. These bubble zones, as well as buffer zones around the entrances and exits of such facilities would help protect individuals from harassment and intimidation while protecting the First Amendment rights of persons to express their views. Do you support legislation to establish safety zones surrounding reproductive health care facilities in the Commonwealth? YES

5. Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools? YES

6. Anti-choice groups have tried to erode a woman's constitutional right to choose by trying to ban specific abortion procedures. One such attempt has been the campaign to ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions. Would you oppose a ban on safe and medically necessary methods of abortion? The double-negative construction of this question is confusing. I support the ban already codified in Massachusetts state law which prohibits abortions after 24 weeks except those performed by a physician to save the life of the mother, or when there is a substantial risk of grave impairment to her health.

7. In recent years, a campaign of violence, intimidation, and harassment has been waged against reproductive health providers, patients, and their families. Planned Parenthood believes the federal government should take an aggressive role in enacting and enforcing laws to deter these illegal acts, and in prosecuting the perpetrators of such acts. Do you support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients? YES

8. Currently, according to Massachusetts General Law, if you are under the age of 18 and you have never been married, you must have the consent of one of your parents or a judge to have an abortion in Massachusetts. Do you oppose restrictions on a minor's access to abortion services? The double-negative construction of this question is confusing. I support current state law.

9. In 1998, the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as "the morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES Signed: Mitt Romney
Date: April 9, 2002

Unfortunately, far too many people in the pro life movement have believed the hype that Mitt Romney truly is pro life despite his many, many years of supporting abortion.  As I have posted in the past, conservatives so badly want a political candidate they can trust that they will believe almost anything they are told.

But reality eventually hits us all in the face, and that happened this week with the Todd Akin story.  When Rep. Akin said that he does not support abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, Mitt Romney's campaign immediately denounced him and said they do support abortion under such circumstances.  Romney has even called for Rep. Akin to step down from his race for senator.  Thankfully Rep. Akin is standing strong and refusing to step down.

Below is the story from onenewsnow.com about the growing disenchantment which at least one pro life group is experiencing with Gov. Romney.

 Romney snubbing pro-lifers, GOP platform

Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)
Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:38 AM  

Personhood USA is calling on presidential candidate Mitt Romney to retract a statement he made this week about abortion.

Jennifer Mason is a spokesperson for Personhood USA, which supports proposed state amendments that define personhood at the biological beginning of life. She says her group also wants Romney to change course on Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-Missouri), who recently made a misstatement about children conceived in rape.

"We have recognized that Mitt Romney has basically turned his back on the Republican Party platform by claiming that he will uphold abortions in cases of rape and incest," Mason explains. "The Republican Party … our organization and pro-lifers nationwide believe that all life is valuable and sacred."

Romney made his statement and call for Akin's withdrawal from the race on Monday, after Akin admitted his statement for "legitimate rape" was wrong.

"While [his words] were insensitive, [Akin] has apologized for those, and he has basically been a 100-percent pro-life candidate," the Personhood USA spokesperson notes. "So we're calling on Romney to support Akin and not turn his back on him in this upcoming Senate race."

It was after Akin's verbal snafu that Romney announced he would not stand against abortion in cases of rape, which is contrary to the Republican platform. He also asked Akin to withdraw from the race and has declined to change his mind on that, even though Akin has apologized.

* * * 

 

There was another article involving this same group, Personhood USA, on times247.com, and their realization that Rep. Paul Ryan's addition as Vice President will have no effect on Romney policies.

Pro-life group hits Romney on abortion stance 

Only a few days after praising Rep. Paul Ryan's pro-life record, Personhood USA, one of the largest anti-abortion organizations in the U.S., is now criticizing the Romney-Ryan campaign for endorsing abortion in instances of rape.

"Personhood USA does not endorse political candidates, but we had hoped that Congressman Ryan would be a good influence on Governor Romney, considering Romney's liberal abortion record," said Jennifer Mason, Communications Director for Personhood USA.
 

"Reading today that babies conceived in rape should suffer the death penalty under a Romney-Ryan administration is extremely concerning, and indicates that Congressman Ryan's pro-woman and pro-baby positions would have little influence if he wins the office of Vice President of the United States."

* * *

Although Rep. Ryan's positions are laudable when it comes to abortion, he is very mainstream when it comes to other positions, always supporting the party line, such as support for the war in Afghanistan and voting for the National Defense Authorization Act.   Even though Paul Ryan worked with Todd Akin on the Personhood Bill in 2009, Ryan was nowhere seen to be defending Rep. Akin when he came under attack this week for his pro life stands.  This is a preview of what we will see in a Romney/Ryan administration. 

As the Huffington Post tells us:

The Republican vice presidential nominee told local CBS affiliate KDKA he is "proud" of his anti-abortion record when asked if abortion should be available to women in instances of rape.

"I'm proud of my pro-life record," Ryan said. "And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress."

"But [there's always a "but"] Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration," Ryan continued.  [So no matter what positions Ryan may personally take, he will go along with whatever Mitt Romney says.  Voters need to keep this in mind]

Ryan also tried to distance himself from a bill he co-sponsored with Akin to introduce language around "forcible rape" into prior legislation, in order to limit federal funding on abortions for rape victims. [This should tell you everything you need to know.  It doesn't matter what Ryan did in the past.  He will compromise any and all of his beliefs to Mitt Romney.]  The congressman quickly cut off a question asking him to clarify what those terms meant, responding, "Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story."

"Rape is rape and there's no splitting hairs over rape," he added, when pressed further on the contradiction between his latest comments on abortion versus his record.

Rep. Ryan not only did not support Todd Akin, he actively turned against him:

Ryan acknowledged to reporters that he had phoned Akin this week to encourage him to drop his bid. He said he had “no plans” to talk to Akin again. “He’s going to run his campaign, we’re going to run ours.”  [Ryan has completely distanced himself from Akin.]

Politicians are always willing to tell you what you want to hear, but once they are in office, they will do what they are told to do and pay absolutely no attention to the voters.  We have seen it over and over again. 

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.  We've all been conned. 

The Democrats Celebrate Death

Forget the donkey, this is the real symbol
of the Democrat Party 

Blessed John Paul II often warned the world of the culture of death.  What is the culture of death?  Pope John Paul II wrote the following in EVANGELIUM VITAE, released on March 25, 1995, the Feast of the Annunication of the Lord:

[W]hile the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.

Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. [We saw this played out in the tragic murder of Terry Schiavo, who, by order of a court, had food and water withheld until she died because she was considered a "useless life".  We would not treat mass murderers this way, yet Terry Schiavo was sentenced to die a long torturous death merely for the crime of being useless to the State.] 

Terri Schiavo, who died almost 14 days after
her feeding tube was forcibly removed and she was not even
allowed water by court order

In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States. 

The Democrats have announced their speakers for the upcoming convention, and these include some of the biggest "stars" of the Culture of Death.  The Democrats are going to be celebrating abortion, believe it or not.  What is this really?  Take a look at this picture:

What you are looking at are pieces of an unborn baby that was aborted at 10 weeks old.  This is what the Democrats will be celebrating when they talk of a woman's "right to choose." The "right to choose" means the right to choose to kill your baby, plain and simple.  You can be sure that the devil will be dancing in the rafters at the Democrat Convention this year. 

John Paul II wrote:

"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom."
John Paul II, The Gospel of Life

Many will point to Adolph Hitler as the face of evil, but he had nothing on what is happening today in the American culture.  We celebrate death in a way that no one in history has ever done so.  Many in our society proudly proclaim their "right" to kill their unborn children.  But as Blessed Pope John Paul II told us:

 "While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in it’s final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of " the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit".
~Evangelium Vitae

And in a few weeks we will see this "right" being proudly proclaimed at the Democrat National Convention, along with the celebration of same sex marriage.  Below is an article from catholicvote.org:

Abortion and Gay Marriage to Be Centerpieces of Democrat Convention

by Thomas Peters

Remember that line we’ve all been fed by the media that the “social issues” don’t matter and that Americans have “moved on” past those pesky debates about abortion and gay marriage?

That was a lie.

Or at least, we know for sure now that its actually the Democrats who care about abortion and gay marriage.

How do we know? In two weeks we will be treated to a pro abortion and pro gay marriage extravaganza in Charlotte, North Carolina brought to us by the Democrat party’s convention.

Pro-abortion after pro-abortion advocate, from Cecile Richards the President of Planned Parenthood to Nancy Keenen the head of NARAL, to Sandra Fluke of HHS Mandate fame — they’ll all be there. Not to mention a host of Democrat politicians whose signature issue is pro abortion (Sen. Mikulski) and pro gay marriage (Rep. Baldwin).
 

 

From the early reports, the Democrat machine is remaking the face of their convention as we speak to be an “anti-Akin affair” in addition to issuing a casting call for this set of characters:

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Gay soldier and fellow (straight) soldier who served together in Iraq or Afghanistan (ideally the straight soldier was helped by the gay soldier, i.e., medic, in fire fight) … Planned Parenthood: Husband who talks about how a PAP smear saved his wife’s life and his spouse … Choice: A couple who has children, but wants to make their own decisions, not have the government do it for them (or who has confronted a difficult medical situation).” [Politico]

On the gay marriage issue, though, they’re going to pull their punches a bit:

“…the [planning] documents state the participants should be “not a gay couple” — but a “parent and gay son or daughter.”

Evidently the organizers think America is “not there yet” when it comes to gay marriage (and no wonder, a plurality of Democrats in North Carolina just voted in May to define marriage as the union of husband and wife!). But we all can be pretty sure this hesitancy of theirs will be discarded by the 2016 convention, unless we intervene.

But just step back and consider for a moment what all this means. This is the face the modern democrat party wants to project: pro planned parenthood men (which really means pro planned parenthood women) and parents with gay kids (which really means gay parents) as the centerpiece of their convention.
 

 "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this [same sex marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."     Blessed Pope John Paul II

In other words, people whose very identity is tied up with progressive politics. People who look to the government to secure their “right” to have government pay for their contraception and (when that fails) abortions and who demand government redefine marriage according to their definition and then force that definition upon the rest of society. That’s who the Democrat party wants to cater to.

Trampled underfoot in both these actions is, of course, religious liberty. It is, after all, only the Christian (and often particularly Catholic) witness in defense of the dignity of every human person and in defense of marriage and family that stands in the way of the sweeping social changes championed by the modern progressive movement. For the DNC to reach its public goals it must undermine and discredit the public witness of people of traditional faith and Catholics in particular. That’s an astonishing state of affairs, but I’m convinced it’s the reality we now inhabit. 

So don’t believe what the media tells you, that abortion, threats to religious liberty, and gay marriage aren’t important issues and that we shouldn’t care about them.

Just listen to the Democrat party — they couldn’t be more clear about what they care about.

At least they have the courage of their convictions.

Do we?

* * * 

You can be sure that the devil will be dancing and celebrating at the Democrat National Convention.    If you watch the Democrat Convention, you will be looking straight into the face of evil, into pure hatred of God and all that is good and right.  The Republicans at least put on a face of some civility, some respect for life.  The Democrats have shed every vestige of the culture of life and completely taken on the culture of death.  To support them in any way is to support the devil and his assault on humanity.



"When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society."
Blessed Pope John Paul II

The Republicratic Party

Who Needs Democrats?  Republicans gladly
do the work of beating up each other.

I am becoming completely fascinated with the Todd Akin story which is currently in the news.  Republican Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.) made a statement on Sunday that threw pro-abortion advocates into a tizzy.  He said that very few pregnancies result from rape and that abortion should not be the answer to rape because it involves the killing of an innocent life, that of the unborn child who has done nothing to deserve death.  He criticized the Romney/Ryan campaign because they do favor abortion in cases of rape.  As a practicing Catholic, I am in total agreement with Rep. Akin. 

However, Rep. Akin made one very bad mistake.  He used the words "legitimate rape."  This was all the pro abortion advocates needed to direct all of their ire against Rep. Akin.  Forget the fact that he spoke absolute truth in what he said, that there are very few pregnancies resulting from abortion, as proven in my prior posting on this subject, and that to abort a child conceived as a result of rape is to kill an innocent life.  As one would expect, pro abortion advocates accused Rep. Akin of coldness and indifference to rape victims.  The couldn't care less about the innocent child, or the fact that the mother of that child will not only have to suffer with the trauma of rape, but also with the trauma of having killed her child.

But it wasn't just Democrat pro-abortion advocates who went ballistic over Akin's remarks.  Some of the most vociferous attacks against Rep. Akin are coming from Republicans, supposedly the pro-life party, calling for Akin to immediately step down from his senate race against Senator Claire McCaskill.  As reported in my prior posting, the Romney/Ryan campaign denounced Rep. Akin's comments and said they absolutely do support abortion in cases of rape. 

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh said:  "Akin's Remark was Stupid and Untrue -- Now He Must Put the Nation's Future First."  He said on his show:

"And this whole business of a woman's body shuts down in rape, there's no evidence for that. But this is the kind of thing that people who do nothing but talk amongst themselves will conjure up, a belief system like that, and they'll grab on to anything they can to support what their empirical belief is because their ultimate aim is to save life." [There's something wrong with that?]

Limbaugh went on to say:

Their [pro life group's] ultimate aim is to protect the baby no matter what circumstance the conception occurs in. And I think that's just who the guy is, but he doesn't know how to explain it. He has no clue how to make his case for it. And so he hangs around people who are like-minded and they've devised this belief. He's not the first guy to say this. I've had people tell me that a woman's body shuts down in rape. There's no evidence for this. I mean it's absolutely absurd. This leads to the second problem. This is absurd. That belief that a woman's body shuts down and the whole notion of legitimate"/"illegitimate" rape, that's the thing that bothers me about it. That's just absurd. It's not intelligent."

Really, Mr. Limbaugh?  You don't think the trauma of being raped would have any effect on a woman's ability to conceive, despite all the evidence that it does?  Why would you not even bother to look into this instead of making such uninformed statements?  

Then Limbaugh tries to convince us Republicans need to get rid of Akin because the Democrats love him so much!!

Well, he won a three-way race in which the Democrats could vote, and the Democrats were running ads suggesting that this guy win. They couldn't wait to run against this guy because of the issue of abortion and this whole War on Women. They just couldn't wait! McCaskill was salivating to get Akin as the nominee, and she got what she wanted. There's a poll out. I don't know if you've seen this. You probably have seen it because it's a little after noon and this poll has been out since yesterday.

It's from Public Policy Polling, a liberal Democrat polling firm from North Carolina. Even after all of this they say Akin still leads McCaskill by one point. But have you seen the sample breakdown on that poll? You haven't? Well, I'll tell you about it. There are 9% more Republicans in the sample than Democrats. This poll is part of the whole strategy to keep Akin on the ticket, to keep him as the nominee. Public Policy Polling with a poll out, after all this, that shows this guy leading McCaskill by one point.

So Limbaugh says the Democrats are skewing the polling in favor of Akin and that is why we must get Akin out.  Don't you love the logic in this, as if it makes any sense whatsoever? 

Limbaugh actually goes on to say that Akin isn't a bad guy, he wants to save lives, he just makes stupid, uninformed statements (unlike Limbaugh, of course).  Limbaugh's contention is that Republicans just can't have distractions like Rep. Akin, that they can't give the Democrats any ammunition against them.  Why, Akin gave Obama an opportunity to call a rare press conference and come out against the Republicans!  And Republicans just can't take that kind of action.  It puts the country at stake!

Here is Limbaugh's parting shot on why Akin has to go:

And, Bobby [a caller he was talking to], I hear what you're saying. You don't want to run around and defend stupidity [that's why I never defend you, Rush]. What's in it for anybody to defend stupidity? "Well, Rush, didn't you do that?" No. I know what he was trying to say. I know what's in the guy's heart. But, I'm sorry, if he can't 'splain it, then get out! [And certainly don't listen to any further statements that he does make in which he clarifies his statements!] It's not that hard. It's not that hard to say, "It's not the baby's fault." [And that's not exactly what Rep. Akin was saying?] That's all he's trying to say. Just say that instead of this rigmarole about the woman's body "shuts down"? For crying out loud! I just... Aaaugh! Where are some brains? Just get some brains! Let's have some people we can look up to!  [And you, Rush, are certainly not someone that anyone can look up to.]

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, the right-wing bomb thrower who is the darling of so many conservatives, titled her column:  "If Akin Loves His Country, He Will Step Aside."  She gives us the dire warning:  "This is no time for another foot-in-the-mouth, Trent Lott Republican to be dominating the national political discussion. The country is at stake." 

Oh, she is so right.  The country is at stake.  But isn't it much more important to get behind someone who is so strongly pro life, despite his "gaffe", rather than to throw him under the bus because he made a mistake?  As we are told, news cycles are always changing, and in less than two weeks time this story will be almost completely forgotten as the next big story takes its place.  So why the rush among Republicans to get Akin out of the race when he is leading over the Democrat incumbent?  Why did the Romney/Ryan campaign waste no time in denouncing Rep. Akin? 

Here is a story from foxnews.com about the Republican criticism of Rep. Akin and the strong calls for him to step down.  Ask yourself why the self-proclaimed "pro life" party is not supporting and defending this strong pro-life candidate.  Why do they, in no uncertain terms, want him out of the race?

Rep. Akin resists mounting calls to withdraw from Senate race after 'rape' comment

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin resisted calls to withdraw from the race Monday over his controversial comments on rape, despite mounting pressure from GOP leaders who roundly condemned his remarks and threatened to cut off funding. [Let's not even give Akin a chance, despite the fact that he is leading his race.  Let's immediately take away all his support from the Republican party.]

Republicans really know how to throw
each other under the bus

 "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate," Akin tweeted Monday afternoon, as he solicited new donations. He also told Fox News' Sean Hannity on his radio show that "we're going to stay in." [I only wish I was in a position to vote for Rep. Akin.]

The tweet followed scattered and unconfirmed reports that Akin was moving to withdraw from the race. Akin, though, rejected those claims publicly even as Republican leaders leaned on him hard to reconsider his bid for Senate.

A source within the National Republican Senatorial Committee told Fox News that Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Senate GOP campaign arm, already has told Akin that if he stays in the race, the $5 million set aside for the Missouri race will be withdrawn. Cornyn, according to the source, told him the party is concerned his presence in the race could imperil Republicans' chances of winning the Senate majority.  [Don't ever look for loyalty from the Republicans.  The Democrats, with all their faults, would never do this to one of their own.  VP Joe Biden is the sterling example.  He makes gaffe after gaffe, yet the Democrats stand solidly behind him.]

Akin, a six-term GOP congressman, is challenging Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill for her seat. His chances looked fairly sunny -- up until he told an interviewer with Fox affiliate KTVI that a woman's body can typically prevent pregnancy during a "legitimate rape," as he argued against allowing abortions in cases of rape, claiming such pregnancies are uncommon in the first place. [Rep. Akin is still ahead in this race]

"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin told KTVI. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin has since backed off the comment, saying he "misspoke." Akin apologized for the remark Monday. [That will never be enough for the Republicans.]

Adding to the wave of condemnation, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called his comments "totally inexcusable."

Sen. Mitch McConnell

 "What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."

Several other GOP Senate candidates were also putting serious distance between their campaigns and his, as they tried to head off Democratic efforts to link Akin's comments to other members of the party.

GOP Sen. Scott Brown [who is pro abortion], who's in a tough race against President Obama ally Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, tweeted that he found Akin's remarks to be "outrageous."

He followed up with a written statement calling on Akin to bow out.

"As a husband and father of two young women, I found Todd Akin's comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong," Brown said. "There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin's statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri." [Why should we care about the views of a pro-abortion politician, no matter what party he is from?]

Further, NRSC Chairman Cornyn used a brief written statement to nudge Akin to reconsider his bid for Senate.

"Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible," Cornyn, R-Texas, said. "I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service."

Obama, speaking in the White House briefing room, also called the comments "offensive." "Rape is rape," Obama said, and the idea of distinguishing among types of rape "doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." [Ah, Rep. Akin - you are one powerful man.  You have united the Republicans and Democrats!  Who would have ever thought that was possible?]

Aside from Brown, other Republicans in tough Senate races were similarly critical, without calling on Akin to step aside.

Rep. Jeff Flake, who is running for Senate in Arizona, tweeted that Akin's comment was "wrong."

"I oppose abortion, but exceptions must be made for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother," he said. [If you believe this, then you are not truly pro life.  Only the Catholic Church understands this.]

Virginia Senate candidate George Allen and Montana Senate candidate Rep. Denny Rehberg reportedly have joined in the rebuke -- as has Akin's former primary opponent Sarah Steelman, who tweeted that she found the comments "inexcusable, insulting and embarrassing to the GOP."

Mitt Romney gave a similar verdict in an interview with The National Review.

"Congressman Akin's comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong," Romney said. [Oh, Governor, we can always count on you to be pro life, can't we?]

Nevertheless, the Akin remarks became fast fodder for the Democratic National Committee, as Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz tried to link Akin's stance to the Romney campaign.

"Now, Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here. The real issue is a Republican Party -- led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan -- whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong," she said in an email directing supporters to sign an anti-Romney petition on the DNC website.

She cited Romney's past comments on wanting to "get rid" of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The DNC email follows a pattern of trying to characterize the Romney ticket as "dangerous" to women, fueled in this case by comments from a congressman not tied to the presidential campaign.

McCaskill, who is seeking a second term, said in an emailed statement Sunday that she found the comments "offensive."

"It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape," McCaskill said. "The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."

Akin clarified his remarks in a written statement.

"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," Akin's statement said. "Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve."  [No one is going to let you clarify anything, Rep. Akin,  Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all other Republican leaders will make sure of that.]

Akin also said in the statement he believes "deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action." [God bless you, Rep. Akin.  Please hang tough.  We need you.] 

Fox News' John Brandt and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why would the Republicans be doing what one would think is the job of the Democrats - attacking a pro life Republican candidate?  Because the Republicans don't want this country to be pro life anymore than the Democrats do!  Republicans and Democrats are both working for the same goals.  They fuss and yell at each other, pointing out their "differences."  But don't kid yourself.  The Republicans have had plenty of chances over 40 years to overturn Roe v. Wade .  They've never done it and they never will do it, and they will keep anyone out who gives the slightest indication that they actually do want to overturn this evil law. 

Rep. Todd Akin made the mistake of letting it be known that he is truly pro life, that he defends innocent life no matter what the circumstances, and for this, both Republicans and Democrats - The Republicrats, as it were -  are aiming all their guns at him.

Think there is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats?  You're living in a fantasy world.

Romney/Ryan Support Abortion in Cases of Rape

There are few more traumatic events that can happen in any one's life than to be sexually assaulted.  It can leave physical scars and almost always leaves life-long mental trauma.  It is truly tragic when pregnancy is the result of rape, but is abortion - killing the innocent baby - the answer?  By killing the baby, we now have two crime victims, and one completely innocent victim has paid with his or her life.  It is also a fact that abortion is always traumatic to the mother under any circumstances, so now she must suffer not only from the rape but from the added trauma of having killed her baby.   

One very brave United States Congressman, Republican Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.), has spoken on this subject, and dared to speak the truth that there are very few pregnancies that result from rape.  Statistics show that there are no more than one or two pregnancies for every 1,000 rapes.  From christianliferesources.com:

Let's look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.

• Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.

• A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.

• One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).

• Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let's cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).

• Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).

• Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400)

• Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).

• Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).

• In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we're talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman

So where am I going with all this?  Rep. Akin made his comments in connection with the Romney/Ryan presidential campaign, criticizing them for favoring abortions in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, which as we have seen, is extremely rare.  Here is an article from thehill.com about the Romney/Paul's campaign's objection to Rep. Akin's comments.

 Romney campaign criticizes Akin’s remarks on rape, abortion

By Meghashyam Mali - 08/20/12 06:40 AM ET


Mitt Romney's campaign on Sunday quickly condemned a comment from Republican Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.) claiming that pregnancy from rape was rare and said the presumptive GOP nominee and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would not take steps to block abortions in cases of rape. 

"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," said Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg in a statement.  [Well, Governor, you are consistent since you signed a bill while governor of Massachusetts forcing Catholic hospitals to give abortion-inducing drugs in cases of rape.  But Representative Ryan, how do you stand on this since you know this is against Church teaching?]

The campaign's response came after Akin, the Republican Party's Senate candidate in the key swing state of Missouri, said that "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy during an interview with a St. Louis television station.

Akin, in the interview, was asked to explain his opposition to abortion for pregnancies caused by rape.

"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he said.

Akin said later, in a statement, that he “misspoke,” claiming that his comments did not “reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.”  [This drives me absolutely crazy.  Senator Akin's statement had nothing to do with lack of empathy for rape victims.  He was merely stating a fact that very few rapes result in pregnancy.  I wish just once that politicians had the courage of their convictions and did not bow to political correctness.]

He stood by his opposition to abortion, saying, “I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”  [God Bless Rep. Akin for standing on the side of life at least to this extent and making what has become a very courageous statement in our culture.]The comments sparked a firestorm and will likely bring attention to both Romney's and Ryan’s positions on abortion.

Obama’s campaign, which already holds a strong edge among female voters, has made Ryan’s stance on abortion and other women’s-health issues a cornerstone of its attacks on the new GOP vice presidential pick.

“Make sure the women in your life know: Paul Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest,” read a tweet from Obama’s official Twitter account on Aug. 12, a day after Ryan was tapped for the GOP ticket.

Ryan, who is Catholic, opposes abortion except when the life of the mother is at risk and co-sponsored a bill which would define human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. Pro-abortion-rights groups said the measure would limit access to contraception.  [I am very glad that Rep. Ryan sponsored a bill defining life as beginning at fertilization (which of course will go nowhere), but Rep. Ryan is actually out of step with Catholic church teachings in supporting abortion when the mother's life is at risk.  The Church condemns abortion - the deliberate killing of the baby - in all instances.  The Church will allow medical procedures for the mother if the unintended result is the death of the baby.  But the Church never allows the deliberate killing of the baby, which is the definition of abortion, in any instance.]

Romney also believes in exceptions for rape and incest.

Akin holds a steady lead over his Democratic opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), in the Senate race, but Sunday’s controversy raised concerns among Republicans that his remarks could inflict lasting damage on his campaign. McCaskill slammed his comments as “offensive.”

Kelly Wright, who began life as the result of rape

There is no reason why a child born as the result of a rape cannot grow up to live a happy, productive life.  One stellar example of this is Kelly Wright, a former Fox News anchorman, whose mother was raped by her minister when she was a teenager.  As a result of the rape, she became pregnant, but chose to keep her baby, who grew up to be a successful journalist and Christian pastor. He, for one, is very grateful that she did not abort him, as I am sure are his wife and children.  From Wikipedia:

Wright began his journalism career in 1977 while serving in the United States Army.

Wright has received numerous awards for his reporting, including two local Emmy Awards for his developing, reporting and co-producing a documentary and news series on the transatlantic slave trade.

Wright attended Oral Roberts University. He graduated with the ORU Class of 2008, and delivered the commencement address. He is married and has two sons.

Here is his story from lifesitenews.com

Former Fox News Anchor’s Mother Considered Abortion after Being Raped

January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – This past Saturday, former Fox & Friends Weekend co-anchor Kelly Wright talked with Mike Huckabee on his Fox News show about his mother’s decision to give birth to him despite having conceived him in rape. Kelly made the appearance to promote his new book, “America’s Hope in Troubled Times.”

In his new book, Wright describes how his mother was raped when she was 16 years old, and how he was the result of that rape.

Calling the way he came into the world “very unique” Wright explained that in the summer of 1954 his mother had become close friends with the young wife of a pastor. One day, Wright’s mother went to her friend’s house to go shopping. However, her friend had already left, and when Wright’s mother entered the home of the pastor, he assaulted her.

Wright explained that there was nothing his mother could have done against the pastor because, “It would be her word against a reputable member of the community.”

“To make a long story short, she went ahead and continued to think that everything was okay, but then discovered she was pregnant.”

When Wright’s mother found out she was pregnant, she was offered an abortion as a means out. However, in 1954 abortions were still illegal, and Wright acknowledged that she would have been putting herself at great risk by undergoing one.

However, the primary reason Wright’s mother choose not to have him killed was her desire for children. Wright quotes his mother as having said, “This is God telling me that this may be the only biological child I have.” As it turns out, Wright’s mother was right, and Kelly would be her only biological child; Kelly’s sister was adopted.

Kelly Wright, in addition to being a correspondent for Fox News, is also now a pastor. He says, “It just shows how God was looking out for me and I had a purpose to live for.”

Mike Huckabee, a pastor himself, commented after Wright told his story, “For all of us who know you, that thought but by the grace of God and your mother having made another choice, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

“It’s the greatest affirmation for why it’s important to value every life as having worth and value. And you just have vividly demonstrated that to us.”

Kelly Wright has worked in journalism since entering the army in 1977. He has covered such stories as the Iraq war, the 2004 presidential elections, and the death of Terri Schiavo. In a profile for Fox News, Wright said the person who had the most influence in his life was his mother, June Lorraine Overton.

By Matt Anderson

Maybe if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would talk to Kelly Wright, they might have a different opinion about abortion in cases of rape.  But then again, sadly, maybe not.

Think about this: when you are aborting your child, you are also aborting your other children's brother or sister, you are aborting someone's best friend, someone's husband or wife, someone's father or mother.  You are aborting all of the children and grandchildren and other descendants of your child.  If  Kelly Wright's mother had aborted him, she would have aborted the pastor of a church, an Emmy-award winning journalist, a service man in the US military, a husband and a father.  You are never aborting a glob of tissue or even just a baby. 

Think about it. 

Roman Catholic Priest Assists at Same Sex Marriage

The DH and I were going through our Sunday routine after Mass, having lunch together, listening to Jonathan Schwartz on the radio and reading the New York Times.  I always look through the wedding section and especially at the same sex marriage announcements to see what churches are participating.  To my amazement, I found an announcement of a same sex marriage in which a Lutheran minister officiated and a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST assisted.  Yes, you read that right - a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST assisted at a same sex marriage ceremony.  His name is Rev. Michael Devito.  There is a priest by that name in the the diocese of Hartford, Connecticut.  I don't know for certain that this is the same Rev. Michael Devito as mentioned in the wedding announcement.  I have e-mailed him and have not received a response.  I have also contacted the Harford Archdiocese and have not received a response. 

 Here is the announcement from the New York Times: 

Roger Danforth, Richard Termine

Published: August 19, 2012

Roger Thomas Danforth and Richard James Termine were married Friday evening in New York. The Rev. David C. Parsons, a Lutheran minister, officiated aboard the Lexington, a chartered yacht, on the East River, with the Rev. Michael DeVito, a Roman Catholic priest and a cousin of Mr. Termine, assisting.

Mr. Danforth (left), 63, is the artistic director of the Directors Project, a career development program for theater directors run by the Drama League, a New York organization dedicated to professional theater. He is also a freelance director.

He graduated from Western Michigan University and received a master’s degree in directing from Florida State University. He is a son of the late Arline H. Danforth and the late Herbert R. Danforth Jr., who lived in Palm Harbor, Fla.

Mr. Termine, 59, is a freelance photographer in New York. He has done work for the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Carnegie Hall and the 92nd Street Y. He is also the on-set photographer for “Sesame Street,” and is on the board of the Jim Henson Foundation in New York.

He graduated from the University of Connecticut, from which he also received a master’s degree in puppetry. He is a son of Marie L. Termine of Middletown, Conn., and the late Rosario T. Termine.

The couple’s wedding took place on the 30th anniversary of their meeting at a performance of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park.

This is a terrible scandal in the Church. The Catholic Church is embroiled in a war with the United States Government right now in which the government is trying to force us to go against our own teachings.  And here is a priest assisting in a same sex marriage ceremony, which can never be morally right under any circumstances. 

If this Rev. Michael Devito is the same one as listed in the Archdiocese of Hartford, the archbishop there must take immediate action. This priest should be immediately relieved of his duties as pastor and suspended from all priestly duties.  This cannot be overlooked. 

This is the kind of action that has led to the spiritual impotence of the Catholic Church in our time.  We cannot be sending conflicting messages like this to the rest of the world.  We are the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.  We have the message of salvation for the world.  So many hundreds of millions of souls are being lost because of renegade priests such as Father Michael Devito. 

If the information in the New York Times announcement is true, Father Michael Devito, be it Father Devito in Connecticut or wherever he may be, must be immediately removed from the priesthood. 

UPDATE:  Deacon Greg Kandra of The Deacons Bench blog has contacted me and seems quite concerned that I may not have the right priest.  At Deacon Kandra's suggestion, I have removed the contact information I earlier listed until it can be verified that we have the correct Father Devito.  However, as I have stated, I have emailed him as well as contacted the Hartford Archdiocese and have not received any response.   As Deacon Kandra said on his blog, I would like to hear an explanation of this situation.  It is quite serious and scandalous. 

UPDATE: HARTFORD ARCHDIOCESE RELEASES STATEMENT.

Muslim Brotherhood Carrying Out Crucifixions in Egypt

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

There is a horrific story coming out of Egypt that you will not see covered anywhere on the MSM.  Egypt is now ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is defined on Google as follows:

An Islamic religious and political organization dedicated to the establishment of a nation based on Islamic principles. Founded in Egypt in 1928, it has become a radical underground force in Egypt and other Sunni countries, promoting strict moral discipline and opposing Western influence, often by violence.

This means sharia law, which is violence and death to anyone who is not a Muslim.  Not too long ago I posted a story about the beheading in Tunisia of a Muslim man who converted to Christianity.  The slow, tortuous beheading of this martyr was filmed and shown on Egyptian television.  This story, of course, was not covered anywhere on the MSM. 

The latest nightmare coming out of the Middle East is that the Muslim Brotherhood, the ruling party in Egypt, is now conducting crucifixions.  The Obama administration openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood, as Fox News told us back in June of this year when the Brotherhood came to power:

President Barack Obama on Sunday called Egypt's president-elect, Mohammed Morsi, to congratulate him on his victory and offer continued U.S. support for Egypt's transition to democracy.

Gateway Pundit filled in the story further:

Egyptian secular leaders held a rally today condemning the US administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the country. The speakers claimed the Obama Administration was forcing the military to hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here is the story on the crucifixions in Egypt and the complete lack of condemnation from the United States as reported in the WND:

Arab Spring run amok: 'Brotherhood' starts crucifixions

WND EXCLUSIVE
Arab Spring run amok: 'Brotherhood' starts crucifixions
Opponents of Egypt's Muslim president executed 'naked on trees'Published: 1 day ago
byMichael CarlEmail | Archive

Michael Carl is a veteran journalist with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He also has two Master's Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his family in the Northeast United States.

The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.

Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

 

Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”

 

“Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.

 

Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians.

 

“It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”

 

Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.

 

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez cited chapter and verse from the Quran to explain that crucifixions are not simply normal for Islam, they’re demanded.

 

“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah,” Lopez said. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning, even though it’s not exclusively Islamic. The Romans used it too.

 

“So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option to not include crucifixion within their legal code. It’s obligatory to comply with Shariah. And yes, it’s for shock value also to be sure,” Lopez said.

 

Lopez includes a warning for Egypt’s Christians and compares the coming treatment of the Christians to the Jews in Germany.

 

“The Copts must get out of Egypt as soon as possible – for the many millions who will not be able to get out, I expect things will continue to deteriorate – just as they did for Germany’s and Europe’s Jews from the 1930s onward,” Lopez said.

 

“The warnings were there long before the ghettos and round-ups and one-way train trips to the concentration camps began in the 1940s,” she said.

 

If you think this is just an Egyptian problem, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. Read “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

Author Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, an analyst of the Middle East and Islam, fully agrees and also cites the Quran.

 

“The Christians are in serious trouble, because the Quran in Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to wage war against them and subjugate them, and they’re also identified with the hated West and the U.S.,” Geller said.

 

Geller also turned to Sura 5:33.

 

Islamic hardliners

 

“These are Islamic hardliners who do everything by the Quran. The Quran says, ‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land,” Geller said.

 

International Christian Concern’s Middle East analyst Aidan Clay believes there is a relationship between the recent attacks on the regime’s enemies, a recent Sinai military skirmish and Morsi’s moves against the ranking generals.

 

The “Sinai skirmish” involved suspected Hamas guerrillas trying to cross into Gaza from Egypt. The Israeli Defense Force and intelligence learned of the attempted crossing in advance and stopped the incursion. Sixteen Egyptian border guards were killed in the attempted Rafah border crossing incident.

 

“It’s hard to believe that President Morsi could have dismissed Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi without the help of lower-ranking military officers. The military’s sense of prestige, which millions of Egyptians still take great pride in, took a battering following the militant attack in Sinai that killed 16 soldiers,” Clay said.

 

“The military should have been prepared for the attack. Israel was. And the blame has largely been placed on Tantawi for his negligence and for embarrassing the military establishment,” he said.

 

Lopez agrees that Israel’s preparedness is a slap against the Egyptian army.

 

“That border skirmish that resulted in deaths of Egyptian border guards was known ahead of time by Israeli intelligence, which warned their Egyptian military counterparts,” Lopez said.

 

She notes that Israeli intelligence avoided contact with the Muslim Brotherhood in the incident because the attacks were a Hamas plot.

 

Lopez added that even after notification, the Egyptian army didn’t act.

 

“The Egyptian military did nothing, even as Israel expected. Thus the attack was carried out, Israel was totally prepared and responded and the result was Egyptian military deaths,” Lopez said.

 

Responding to ‘crisis’

 

She added that Morsi wasted no time in responding to the “crisis.”

 

“Morsi jumped on the incident as the perfect reason to purge the top ranks of the Egyptian military, install his own MB-sympathizers in positions across the top, chief of staff and intel chief,” she said. “Some call it an internal coup d’etat – and I agree. It put Morsi in sole control of the legislative branch (there is no parliament right now) and in control of the political power in Egypt. The new defense minister is a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. Things are moving very fast.”

 

Clay said there are mixed feelings among the military top brass in Egypt. He said some still support Tantawi; some have called for change.

 

“While many senior military officers maintained their support for Tantawi, his reputation took a dive among many younger officers who saw the need for a replacement. It wasn’t just the attack in Sinai that led to this, but the military’s reputation has been on the decline since a few months following the country’s uprising early last year,” Clay said.

 

“For some, the Sinai attack was the final straw and Morsi may have viewed it as an opportune time to remove Tantawi and other high-ranking officers from key positions,” Clay said.

 

He noted that Morsi, not the military, took the lead in responding to the Sinai attacks.

 

“In doing so, while also forcing Tantawi out of his cabinet, Morsi has set a precedent that it is he who decides who runs the army,” Clay said.  [This is the "democracy" that President Obama praised??  The silence from the White House on this matter is deafening.]

 

“While the generals will still advise Morsi, he can decide whether or not to listen to them. It’s apparent that Morsi is quickly becoming Egypt’s sole leader which means control of the country will be in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.

 

However, Geller believes Morsi had a second motive for his action.

 

Reign of terror

 

“I suspect that Morsi’s action was timed in part to forestall any further military action against the jihadis,” Geller said, adding that the results will make Egypt’s government more monolithic than it already was.

 

“Morsi is instituting a reign of terror to consolidate his power,” Geller said.

 

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed: Morsi is after the power.

 

“Morsi certainly wants absolute control. The Egyptian army have never been saints, but Morsi will broker no checks to his power as the Muslim Brotherhood writes a constitution and imposes its dream of an Islamic state on Egypt,” Rubin said.

 

Lopez says this all means that Morsi is shedding his “moderate” veneer.

 

“The point I would make is that Morsi is not bothering to play ‘moderate’ anymore. He’s moving very aggressively to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said.

 

She added that Morsi is now free to act without any concern for public opinion.

 

“He doesn’t seem to care who thinks what anymore. He knows he’s got the USG and president in his corner no matter what he does. He doesn’t have to pretend, no need for ‘plausible deniability.’ He also knows he’s got the majority of the Egyptian people behind him,” Lopez said.

 

Rubin believes, however, that Morsi will still try to play the “moderate” to continue to gain U.S. support.

 

Playing the moderate?

 

“Morsi is going to play the moderate and the mediator for the world media, all the while complaining that he can’t take more forceful action against the extremists because the radical fringe won’t allow him to do more,” Rubin said.

 

“It’s nonsense, of course, but still an explanation that will satisfy American diplomats, safe behind the walls of their compound,” Rubin said.

 

Lopez added to Rubin’s explanation, but points to the White House as the main cheerleader for Morsi and the Brotherhood.

 

“This is exactly what many of us expected him to do (consolidate power) and I think the White House knew, too, and not only expected but wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood to take over Egypt,” Lopez said.

 

“As far as I know, the White House invitation for Morsi in September still stands – nor have I heard the slightest hint of criticism from any top U.S. government leadership figure about Morsi’s coup. He knows he’s on solid ground with this administration,” Lopez said.

 

So it is quite obvious from this article that the United States, including the MSM, is going to completely ignore this story.  Nothing will be done to help the victims of this terrible and frightening violence.  And, in fact, Morsi will be welcomed into the United States next month, and I guarantee you that no one in the government or the MSM will mention any of the atrocities that have happened and are happening in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.  Most certainly, neither Mitt Romney nor his VP candidate, Paul Ryan, will make any mention of this. 

 

The world devolves further and further into evil.  And there is only one way to battle it - on your knees and crying out to God.