Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Prolife Politics or Postulate?


PolitiJim prayed about all night and this morning about whether to write this article.  Unless you are blond or liberal you now know what I decided.  I am going to attempt to write this with as little snark and sarcasm as possible for PolitiJim, but it is an important issue.

This particular article would not be necessary, if a certain prolife leader would have taken my invitation to cogently debate these issues – but every time I asked a specific question, he pulled a non-conservative tactic of accusing me of accusing him of not being Christian.  Or something.  His replies encompassed ANYTHING other than debating facts.  So this particular piece is NOT to trash him, or to create more “Holy Wars,” but again to try and get down to OBJECTIVE truth.  And I invite him to respond to each point and will even post his response on PolitiJim.  (I’ll bet he won’t post this on LifeNews, however.  Any takers?  PolitiJim needs a new computer.)

We’ve already learned of Ann Coulter’s betrayal of the conservative movement in trying to make Mitt Romney and RomneyCare seem Bill Buckley-like, Matt Drudge’s sell out and now one of the leading Right To Life – Prolife advocates, Steve Ertelt.  This GOP primary campaign has revealed more about character (and sadly) just how unprincipled many conservatives are.


Now Steven claims to “like” Jesus (I’m sure he really LOVES Him, but is incapacitated to say so in 160 characters).  I, however hate the Steelers (except brother-in-Christ Troy Polamalu) and likely haven’t listened to “rock” music since a couple of years after being saved.  But you would think Steven and I would basically have the same goals right?

In the heat of a Twitter “battle” (for lack of a better word), my Christian brother and head of the LifeNews organization tweeted this:


Here again, you would think we would agree, right?  We hate people who CLAIM to pro-life (or claim to be consistently pro-life) but aren’t.  We both also are TIRED of the misrepresentation.  But here we differ.  I claim the person misrepresenting their prolife view is Rick Santorum, and Steven Ertelt thinks it is PolitiJim.

But this head of a major publication for ProLifers (and former multi-state head of state Right To Life groups), has decided it is fair game to trash other prolife people who don’t support Rick Santorum, or who try to get him simply acknowledge inconsistencies about “his” candidate.

ProLifeMommy4Newt is a PolitiJim following friend and we are certainly birds of a feather.  Both deeply committed Christians, trying to find respect in reason and – as you see from her Twitter name – Prolife like PolitiJim.  And like PolitiJim, she is waging a war on an insidious development in the conservative movement.  The ignorance or intentionally taciturn of truth. 

Neither of us are looking to gloat, berate or be “right.”  We simply want accuracy and balance.  I tweeted out yesterday my true feeling.  I said something to the effect of, “I would be much more willing to support Santorum if he wouldn’t pretend he wasn’t or had been wrong (or lied) about things he has.”  Like the bible says, a man is known BY WHAT HE DOES, not but what he says.  My concern is that not only does his pretense continue to make him unelectable reinforcing the hypocrite image he has in Pennsylvania, but that if he miraculously got elected he would actually betray the Prolife cause. Because he CONSISTENTLY has in the past.

So before PolitiJim was aware of the discussion, ProLifeMommy4Newt sent a Tweet and Ertelt responded in succession:





So notice a couple of things here.  First, notice the “give me a break” comment to someone who is CLEARLY identified as a “prolife” mommy, - someone who Ertelt should see as an ally.  There is no attempt to try and persuade her, just a defense (and somewhat arrogant) reply with a pat answer devoid of any actual “facts.”  Not exactly “Like Jesus” moment, but I’ve had those too.  So, ProLifeMommy attempts to bring up a “fact,” something (later) that Ertelt claims to be open to.


In fact she brings up FOUR facts.  But look in the dismissive manner in which Ertelt answers.  Condescension and arrogance and ACCUSING Prolife Mommy of making false claims and "Making stuff up.”  Any chance he simply would ASK for proof?  (We’ll address the actual facts below, but the Attack Count is now Ertelt SE=3, ProLifeMom PLM=0)


Ertelt never addresses Santorum’s enthusiastic (“a true conservative with principles like us”) endorsement of Romney in 2008, nor the campaigning (not just endorsement) for pro-partial birth abortion (and pro-cap and trade) candidate Christine Todd Whitman.  We will take his other two assertions in order and see how they register on the PolitiJim Postulate Plumb line aka “PolitiPostulate”.

Sotomayor.  Ertelt clarifies his error later that Santorum wasn’t in office when Sotomayor was “voted on” since indeed, Rick actually DID vote on her initial approval to the Federal judiciary in 1998.  Unfortunately, he digs himself deeper:


Here is where I would like to ask Mr. Ertelt if his early snark to ProLifeMommy about giving him “a break on not being open to the facts” is appropriate.  First, it is not only false that no one was focused on her in 1998 – it is BLATANTLY false.  This was all covered in the Prolife NUTSS #2 article and sourced from ABC News which reported:

This was not a typical Circuit Court nomination. When Bill Clinton picked Sotomayor in June 1997, many conservatives believed her confirmation would put her in a fast track to the Supreme Court. The Wall Street Journal editorial called her a liberal judicial activist. Rush Limbaugh said Clinton was putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court. A vote to confirm her to the Circuit Court, many Republicans believed, would make it hard to vote against her if she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, led by Majority Leader Trent Lott, delayed Sotomayor’s confirmation vote for more than a year. When the vote finally happened, 29 Republicans — including most conservative stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl and even John McCain — voted no.

Santorum joined every Democrat in the Senate and 24 other Republicans in voting yes. Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 67 to 29.

Perhaps Mr. Ertelt wouldn’t accept this publication.  How about a ProLife source like… his own LifeNews?  Not only does he reference EXTREME positions known at the time, Mr. Ertelt advocates:

Although the brief was written 20 years ago by someone other than Sotomayor and may have been done without her knowledge or consent, some abortion advocates appear to have their smoking gun to allow them to support Sotomayor with fewer reservations than they have thus far.

For pro-life organizations, the brief will likely be another piece of evidence leading to opposition of her nomination.

Not on anyone’s radar?  Nothing to retract?

On her 2009 Supreme Court nomination, “Mr. Consistently Pro-Life” not only did he do NOTHING to stop her, or anything to express his displeasure at the nomination – HE TRIED TO SUBVERT THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE!  (Sorry for the yelling.)  He went on record saying (essentially) it wasn’t worth the effort and we needed to be “pure” on this.  (And by pure he means roll over and play dead.)

PolitiPostulate Score: (PLM = +2, SE = –2). (You get negative points for asserting a falsehood, but I gave him a pass on the “research your facts” false accusation to ProLifeMommy).

Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your integrity by acknowledging these fact.

Ertelt assertion on Planned Parenthood.

Being as gracious as I can, I’m willing to concede that Mr. Ertelt simply didn’t read ProLifeMommy’s tweet carefully.  His first response that Santorum funded Planned Parenthood was that he consistently voted AGAINST it.  BOTH of these are true.  But then the guy who “Likes Jesus” doubles down.


Calling a prolife mommy, a “Mister” isn’t exactly staying above the fray.  Claiming (in all caps) that Senator Santorum ALWAYS voted specifically against it simply being a bad journalist.  Especially when PLM sends his VIDEO INTERVIEW where Rick Santorum ADMITS that he voted for funding via Title X that funded services (albeit not abortion) through Planned Parenthood.  (Approximately at 4:30 mark).

PLM asks if SE has SEEN the video (which if he would, would at least get him to admit that Rick Santorum didn’t ALWAYS vote against Planned Parenthood, right?)


Ok – maybe my readers can find it but I can’t get the Bill Clinton legalese voice over out of my head on this one.  (Whoops. Snark.  Sorry!)  Seriously though, Editor Ertelt completely whitewashes his earlier assertion.  It turns out this is a SERIOUS problem for him by the way.  Ertelt ran a story in LifeNews in February slamming Ron Paul’s ad for saying that Rick Santorum “supported Planned Parenthood.”  There’s only one problem.  The ad never says that.

As you see the ad merely points out NOT that Rick Santorum is for funding Planned Parenthood, but that his supposed steely resolve to be the principled prolife candidate isn’t all that ….well, consistent.

The journalistic integrity of LifeNews is important.  It is arguing statistics and facts about the horrors of taking unborn lives (or in the case of Obama “just born” infanticide).  If a media outlet can’t get this right, how do we use it as a reference for FAR MORE important issues to defend our views to those that already skeptical?  As of this publishing, LifeNews still has no retraction or clarification EITHER in the misleading title, or in the misleading portrayal of the Paul ad.

In fact, the article goes on to wax eloquent about how strong of prolife record Rick Santorum has.  And you know what – HE DOES!.  It’s nothing to be ashamed of.  But LifeNews becomes more propaganda than principle when it says he “frequently” has a 100% prolife record, without just saying what it is. NOT a 100% lifetime prolife record.  It’s not so hard to tell the truth, really.  On Title X it also parses words saying that Santorum “has joined the effort to revoke all funding for Planned Parenthood via Title X.”

Again, technically true but not accurate.  On two counts.  First, this misleads the fact that Santorum’s positions have radically changed.  As the Washington Post gleefully points out the hypocrisy by documenting Santorum saying in the Arizona debate: “I’ve always opposed Title X funding,” and then in 2006 saying, “I support, you know, Title X.”  Again, LifeNews is NOT presenting accurate information to it’s readers to make an informed opinion.  They essentially are falsely accusing Ron Paul of saying something he hasn’t, trying to “puff up” Santorum to look like a 100% prolife candidate and never giving the facts how often he has digressed on abortion issues. That’s not to say he is NOT an overall prolife advocate.  He still clearly is.  But we prolife conservatives would expect a Jesus-liking journalist to just give us the juice WITH pulp and let us strain it – rather than being spoon fed some campaign line from the Santorum camp.

The story STILL isn’t completely told until you realize that Rick Santorum HIMSELF has laid the standard on how we should judge him.  In Santorum’s own words:

“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind.” April 2011

I guarantee someone will object to VIDEO evidence of Santorum’s
lie because it happens to have been caught and linked by HuffPo.

Note that this was LAST APRIL.  So if he “can’t imagine” Planned Parenthood getting funding “of any kind,” wouldn’t it be fair to say that he disagrees with Mr. Ertelt’s own defense that the mere ProLifeMommy is simply too stupid to understand Title X?

The “non-zombie” ProLifers who actually like to think for themselves are quite at a loss what is so hard with Santorum supporters like Ertelt who can’t simply acknowledge that truth.  As I’ve written before, it isn’t Rick’s lack of a completely perfect record that bothers me.  It is his habitual lying and political maneuvering around it that first made me wary of him.

Running PolitiPostulate Score: PLM = +4, SE = –4.  Running Attack Count is now SE=4, ProLifeMom PLM=0 for the “Mr.” without any apology.

Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your character by apologizing to ProLifeMommy for trying to attack her documented facts that Rick has NOT “always” voted against Planned Parenthood or even Title X.


Now, PolitiJim was oblivious to this until I read the FIRST PJM tweet referencing Mr. Ertelt.  My first response? (@GintheGin and @MsJeffDesigns you should have been proud of me!)


And now we come back to the initial tweet of Mr.E saying that he was losing respect for prolife people who mischaracterize.  Not an especially thankful acknowledgement of my praise to him –but whatever.  As I read through the back-tweets and realize that the Editor of LifeNews is backhanding a fellow prolife advocate and Christian, I’m trying to remain objective.  I ESPECIALLY holding down my extreme displeasure of Mr. Ertelt’s utter lack of these facts or – as a supposed journalist – attitude in not even acknowledging basic truths.

I’m a little less charitable – but TRYING to keep it civil. 


This whole discussion could have STRENGTHENED the ProLifers together (and helped Mr. Santorum’s image by the way), had he only said something like:

Yes, I’m disappointed that Mr. Santorum voted for Sotomayor in 1998, but he has a strong enough stance on prolife issues that I’m choosing to overlook it.

But he didn’t.  Instead he turns to page 13 of the James Carville political maneuvers manual and responds:


Frankly, I’m more than a little shocked at this point because I just got done saying “I appreciated” Mr. Ertelt and that he was a “warrior” for prolife causes.  Even the girls who turned me down for the first 7 high school dances weren’t this cruel.  (Ok, one of them was but my therapist tells me “hose nose” could be considered an affectionate term and I’m going with that.)  And yet I digress.

Can someone show me how asking a fellow Christian to admit that “truth” and “honesty” are paramount is attacking his faith in Jesus Christ?  Or moreover, what it has to do WITH THE ARGUMENT and facts at issue?

As PolitiJim readers know, I am QUICK to correct ANYTHING factually in error but it might take me a few days to apologize for my errors.  But eventually do.  Steven (we are told he doesn’t want to be called “Steve” in his bio), claims to have totally debunked EVERY one of my “false charges” in tweets to ProLifeMommy.  I’m encouraged by this since he seems to immediately be familiar with the very well researched and documented PolitiJim article in question.  I nicely ask for links so I can double check my facts (wait, isn’t HE supposed to be the journalist here?), but you won’t believe his response:


It appears to me that he is hiding behind some fake offense (didn’t Jesus say TAKE NO OFFENSE?) in order to actually debate ideas.  In the middle of this I also tweeted:


Response from Steven Ertelt? 


He DID actually tweet PLM a link to support his supposition that Santorum had NEVER voted for Planned Parenthood.  But it was already debunked LifeNews article that falsely portrayed the Paul ad.  In terms of REAL dialogue, REAL give and take of ideas and REAL debate it was bupkis.  Even mild mannered @GintheGin who is NOT taking sides and just observing the timeline adds:


Response from Steven Ertelt?


Actually – I responded to a number of tweets that now have disappeared off of his timeline.  At one point he DOES seem like he’s open to debate – and then runs away.  (You can read MY SIDE of them in my timeline or here, showing me responding to his comments – but his are gone. Next time I’ll copy them faster.)  Here is one that he scrubbed:


But I try to get him back on track after he is then FURTHER offended by pointing out that he is not answer the questions, but attacking my portrayal of his Alinsky tactics.


So PolitiJim reels off a series of questions (all documented) with his usual response:


Just in case you supposed he was offline, he did suddenly respond to a well meaning tweet from


So suddenly Steven sees the need to not “trash” each other like he did ProLifeMommy.  This is great news to me.  However, I never saw the apologetic tweet to her. 

What this means.

This is important to me for a couple of reasons.  We have chastised liberals for years for playing the Clinton game.  It goes something like this:

  • Liberal correctly accused of error by inquisitor.
  • Liberal asked to clarify, admit or apologize.
  • Liberal accuses inquisitor of exactly same, parses or diminishes it’s importance.
  • Inquisitor now points out BOTH factual error AND obfuscating behavior of liberal.
  • Liberal declares inquisitor is ….(fill in the blank, racist, sexist, homophobe, hypocrite, demeaning toward others, insensitive, ignorant, trying to play games, blah, blah blah) – ANYTHING other than answering the charge.
  • Liberal then declares that we should all get along and all this “animus” isn’t healthy for the (country, party, issue, blah, blah, blah), and “can’t we all get along.”
  • Liberal suddenly declares themselves the winner and the truth NEVER gets out.  Worse, it demonstrates to others that the truth doesn’t matter.

You saw this play out here with a LEADER of what is supposed to be the BEDROCK of the social conservative movement – the Prolife movement.  He pulled EVERY ONE of these tricks without ever truly DEBATING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.  Then, when someone stepped in to say “play nice” he was all over that – but still unwilling to debate facts.

Worse, he attempted to get away with lying.  (Yes, lying.).  From earlier in the conversation, he asked (by various people actually) why he is one sided on Santorum:


He mentions that he has defended Gingrich on his site and Twitter column so I have no explanation for the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any negative tweets on Santorum (despite vulgarity, accusations of voter fraud, likely ineligibility, etc.) and yet he not only retweets the Gingrich layoff news but also this:


So Prolife Publisher is all principle and balance, right? Completely neutral EXCEPT any pro-life candidate, correct?


Well, that is so good to hear that you journalistic integrity is completely intact.  And I totally understand that you as an American citizen are different from your role as Editor of LifeNews and wouldn’t let any bias creep in.  We appreciate you for that.  Like all other mainstream reporters and editors, you SPECIFICALLY do not endorse anyone publically so that bias is not called into question right?



Hmmmm.  According to the Santorum site they saw your personal declaration to cast your vote for Rick Santorum as endorsement.  In fact, you call it “the highlight of your precinct.”

American Journalism Review says:

Journalists should not reveal their political views,
Twitter or no Twitter.

In pre-Twitter days, what he did would have been akin to standing up at a public meeting to express his views, which would have been a firing offense at any decent newspaper…  So, no, the emergence of social networking has not changed the rules on how journalists should interact with the public. …to reach out to readers, to engage them in discussions about its mission and what it might do better to serve readers, nothing about the new venues changes the old rules about a reporter's obligation to be, and appear to be, neutral. From that flows credibility, and credibility is the basic reason for a newspaper's business success.

Mr. Ertelt, let’s dispense with the running score of who is documenting these issues correctly and who is not.  And just as a sweetener, I’ll throw away the score on “personal attacks.”

How about we debate REAL issues about abortion among the candidates.  In the old William Buckley, Jr. spirit I submit:

Resolved: Rick Santorum has not been consistently pro-life and, in fact, has betrayed his pro-life views an uncomfortable number of times.

I’ll even give you my complete arsenal of data so you can come prepared.  It’s been out on PolitiJim for 2 weeks, re-titled Pro-Life NUTSS for Santorum Part 2.  I do NOT include the complete lack of ANY attempt in all of his years in congress to author or co-sponsor a personhood amendment, but it includes documentation of:

If you refuse to SERIOUSLY investigate these issues, or if you attempt to downplay their importance because of a bias for Santorum, please don’t bother.

I simply can’t take another dishonest conservative media person who is unwilling to put truth first, and politics second.

Thanks for listening.


Dear PolitiJim (my fine-feathered friend),

WOW!!! Your insatiable appetite for truth is TRULY admirable...

Know I will be eternally grateful to you for taking me under your "wing," AND... documenting this exchange in such a beautiful, Christian way!!

No doubt, we are "birds of a feather," and it is truly an honor flocking together with you!!

God Bless!!

Santorum was once pro-choice in his early years in the House as this article quoting Karen Santorum states:

At least Santorum's conversion to pro-life is a heart/mind/convictions conversion, not a matter of political expediency like Romney.

Newt and Rick signed the pro-life and pro-marriage pledges - Romney did not.

I am a Newt supporter - and even in his wild years, now-repented, he voted pro-life.

It would make Romney and Santorum much more credible if they would own their past records and actions.

It would be helpful if you had a list or chart by the dates and action taken to see how consistent/inconsistent Santorum has been and if he had a true conversion at a certain point or if he waffled or hid his inconsistency.

Color coding - red for pro-abortion, green for pro-life would be great!

Thanks for your thorough and dedicated work!

St. Nikao,

The inconsistencies aren't so clear cut. For example, on Feb. 16, 2012, Rick did an interview with Greta Van Sustern on Fox News (see full interview video above)... where he BOASTS & I mean BOASTS of his funding Planned Parenthood record.

THEN, on Feb. 22, 2012, just 6 days later, he gets BOOED on CNN Arizona debate saying: "Title X" vote was a "mistake" and that he's voted on things that were against his principles because he plays on a team. SO, basically, he blames his team members for voting on Title X (25% of which goes to the organization he himself said was "EVIL & POISONOUS"! "You know," he says, "you play on a team & sometimes you gotta take one FOR THE TEAM."

A Respected Prolife Internest wrote this article :
PLEADING with Mr. Santorum for "Consistency on Title X."

Now... if you read the comment section below this article, you'll see a comment by a Catholic Blogger by the name of Lisa Graas (@CatholicLisa on Twitter; her blog is "Catholic Bandita).
She claims she spoke to Mr. Santorum who told her that he "misspoke during his interview on Greta Van Sustern and is opposed to Title X funding and ALWAYS has been." She draws this proposterous conclusiong: "This whole thing is lie to support Ron Paul."

That's strange. Nowhere on Rick Santorum's website does it show that he intends on eliminating Title X, but rather, he is for making "changes" to it.

(On a side note: Newt voted to eliminate Title X )

Hmmmm... listen to that interview again & ask yourself if it REALLY sounds like he misspoke:::
at LEAST 3x times during this interview he states: "My position is VERY CLEAR" "I've been clear" "I have a consistent and clear voting record on it" "I've funded it (Title X)" "I support it." "Just look at my voting record."

(cont'd) Other inconsistencies include campaigning for and endorsing RADICAL pro abortion supporter Christine T. Whitman. To justify THIS endorsement he stated:
"I wish I could clone me and campaign only for people like me,'' Mr. Santorum told people at a Republican rally in Hopewell. ''But the fact of the matter is that Governor Whitman and I agree on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, and when I find someone I agree with on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, I enthusiastically campaign for them because they’re heading this country in the right direction.”

When Fred Thompson was campaigning back in '07, he pointed out the fact that Romneycare includes ALL abortions w/out restriction for the low price of $50/copay.

Now, by the time '08 rolled around, Romneycare was already 2 years into its' implementation & in this interview w/ Laura Ingraham, he endorses Mitt OVER prolife Mike Hucabee. He says at around the 3:50 mark, "The only other viable candidate is Mike Huckabee... but.... "

Hmmmm... did he mis "endorse?" Could he REALLY not have known that Romneycare not only takes human life but also funds the "Evil/Poisonous Planned Parenthood organization?" I think not...

Could he NOT have know about Whitman's or Sotomayor's RADICAL positions? I think not.

But, he counters these anti-life decisions by making BETTER decisions like arguing against partial-birth abortion (explain to me how creating a bill to ban partial-birth abortion & then campaigning for a person who vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortion is CONSISTENT?)

These are the kind of inconsistencies that are hard to "chart," and is the REASON why most people don't know about it: because you have people of influence like Mr. Ertelt & Ms. Graas refusing to acknowledge them.

Consequently, IMHO, they (the conservative/prolife media) are NO different than the Mainstream Media, who elected Barack Obama by protecting him from scrutiny.

Very convincing case you have presented, Pro-Life Mom.

It is very disappointing - but I have other reasons for not supporting Santorum.

- He will not deal with Big Labor.
- He will not deal with the FED.
- He will not deal with runaway spending and mis-spending.
- He will not deal with political corruption, insider trading, etc.
.... Newt and Sarah Palin are the only two candidates who have the courage, integrity, intellect and will to do this.

Newt and Sarah would reform the inefficient and expensive systems.
They would be an effective perfect pair.

Santorum HAS voted strongly pro-life. When in power Romney didn't. Santorum certainly would be stronger than the two but their inability to come clean about their politically expedient decisions tells us this is who they will be in office.

Santorum has covered up so much of his corruption to the blind evangelical gullibles, I fear they are in for a rude awakening were he to get in office. Santorum might end up being a LESS charismatic version of George W Bush.

Lisa Miller, a progressive questions whether Santorum is a Cafeteria Catholic. I'd like to ask Pro-Life Mom to weigh in on this.

I linked to this post with my comment there.

Just because someone says they are a Christian firstly doesn't mean that they are. Second, it also does not mean they use common sense or can be objective and logical. Gingrich is a Christian too he just doesn't wear it on his sleeve nor does he need to. A righteous man is a humble man.

Great article at StandFirm, St. Nikao!!

When I think of "cafeteria Catholics," I can honestly say, Rick Santorum's name does NOT come to mind. It's more like, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, and.... the late Ted Kennedy. Actually, they really aren't even catholic at all.

The Catholic Church's position on contraception is that it is intrinsically evil.

Mr. Santorum believes that it is wrong & "personally" accepts the Church's teaching on it & admitted that Planned Parenthood is evil/poisonous,& knows the harmful effects of the pill & Plan B (which are included in Title X

However, while he knows it is against Church teaching, he succumbs to political pressure for purposes of political expediency. (This is what worries me about a "Santorum Presidency," --as I noted in my previous comment).

Consequently, with regards to his "record" regarding contraception he is guilty of committing a sin. He is NOT guilty, however, of being a cafeteria Catholic.

And with regards to the article by Ms. Miller, StandFirm summed that up beautifully :
"So what’s the thread that runs through Miller’s effort to define Santorum as a “cafeteria Catholic”? It’s his dissent from liberal political positions that are not in fact official Catholic teaching, but rather the political preferences of a particular segment within Catholic leadership in America."

Thanks ProLifeMom. I'm not a Catholic (but have internally debated more than once about becoming one) and am surrounded by many friends who are. To me it is irrelevant (and I should have said so) since the Bible makes it clear that ANY Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal or 7th Day Adventist who trusts in Jesus with their whole heart AS the Son of God (and says as much with his /her words) IS a Christian. I suspect TRUE Catholics are as embarrassed by his many sins as Republicans were of Richard Nixon or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

AMEN, PolitiJim!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

I'm not sure if I'm "embarrassed" by his sins, for, we are all sinners... I'm actually more embarrassed by many of our Bishops who should be far more protective of our beautiful faith than in their political interests.

I understand the decision on whether or not to become Catholic is not easy.

One thing I can say is that if you DO decide to become Catholic, it will undoubtedly be the best decision you will EVER make.

But, don't take my word for it. Listen to the amazing conversion story of former Presbyterian minister,
Dr. Scott Hahn[VIDEO]

The following website provides fellowship, encouragement, and support to people who are considering becoming Catholic.

It was founded by Marcus Grodi (the man who interviewed Dr. Scott Hahn in the video above),
also a former Presbyterian Minister

He hosts the EWTN program, "The Journey Home."

Perhaps these resources may help to answer some lingering questions you may have...

Be assured of my prayers for you, PolitiJim---my little winged watchman!! :)

God Bless You!!

@Pro-Life Mom,

I'm new to this site, coming from American Thinker. Are you, in fact, a Newt Gingrich supporter? I'm very confused.

Hello, Tess.

Yes, I am a Newt Gingrich supporter.

You can view my timeline on twitter:

P.S.: I am the "ProLifeMommy4Newt/@Crazy4newt" person being attacked by the ProLife editor mentioned in this article.

THANK YOU, again, PolitiJim, for documenting this mind-boggling situation.

I STILL have not received an apology from Mr. Ertelt.

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More