Can Rick Santorum be President?

Rick Santorum would support a Constitutional Amendment on Marriage which would invalidate currently legal Gay Marriages.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is this going to win in a general election?



Rick Santorum says he's a fiscal conservative, but is he?



Just a few notes about Santorum.

Sen. Santorum voted for the bridge to nowhere.

In 2003 he voted to extend Medicare drug benefits to seniors, a vote that conservatives have come to characterize as irresponsible. Santorum admitted to making a mistake on Medicare during a ”Fox News Sunday” appearance.

Santorum a lawyer, didn't even live in the district, or the state he was elected from. He lied about his residency. How's that for honesty?

Rick Santorum claims to be a Strong Pro-Life advocate but he personally endorsed Arlan Spector in 2004. Is Spector a Strong Pro-life advocate?

Spector

• Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. 

• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. 

• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.   

• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.  

• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.  

• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion 

Arlen Spector also helped get ObamaCare passed.

Learn more about About Rick Santorum here.




Even for rape and incest and even for saving the mother’s life. None of them justify abortion in Rick Santorum’s opinion.

Santorum’s views are unapologetically black-and-white. He advocates that any doctor performing an abortion under any circumstances should be criminally charged.

Unless it happens to be Rick Santorum’s wife, and she might have died if not for her 20-week-old fetus being “partial birth” aborted.

In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion. They don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross, Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person, as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.



Cheers,

Mike

Will the real Newt Gingrich please stand up?

We all know candidates tend to start saying anything they need to once they are in striking distance of a political office, especially the Presidency. Can we believe the Newt Gingrich who is currently in the public view? I keep hearing people talk about how well he debates, marveling over his speaking ability and his cuts back at the Media. Is he a rock solid debater? YES. The following is a text book definition for the Concept of Debate.

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe in.

Pay special attention to the last part there. A person who excels at Debate must be able to turn on any issue at any time no matter if they support an issue or not.

In 1997 Gingrich opposed the Brady Gun Control bill but he supported instead the idea of instant verification which relies on the Government having our biometric information on file in order to own firearms.

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich's idea of less government, is more government. Newt Gingrich thinks the Federal Government should have our biometrics on file, this could mean fingerprints, Retinal scans or even our DNA. In other words Newt Gingrich thinks Gun Owners should be treated the same as Felons in the United States of America. Is that who we want as President?

Recently Gingrich was quoted as saying, "There is no difference between left wing social engineering and right wing social engineering." But let's look at a presentation Gingrich made while still a Representative. Newt Gingrich listed his primary mission as being the "Advocate of civilization", "Definer of civilization", "Teacher of the rules of civilization" and the "Arouse of those who fan civilization". He then goes on to say, "This retains a primary focus on the elected political power as the central arena and fulcrum by which a free people debate their future and govern themselves."

Does that sound like someone who isn't concerned with any kind of social engineering? It sounds to me like Newt thinks highly of himself. But don't take my word for it. He wrote this about himself, “The most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich is an excellent debater and that is precisely why I will not support him for President.

Cheers,

Mike

Illinois Presidential Campaign Delegate rules vote delayed

It appears all the debate on this issue has caused the State Central Committee to take notice. This won’t be as cut and dry as they thought it would be. Thanks in large part to those of us newly active we were able to make them realize many in the State are now paying attention to details, because details do matter.

If you have any questions about the proposed rules change please feel free to contact me. This new change could be huge, and it could make IL relevant again in Presidential Politics, and not just a state where candidates come to raise funds. The new rules will also allow the other candidates who don’t get all the press coverage and the MSM (Main Stream Media) seal of approval a chance to compete on the National Stage. The field is spread pretty thin and could get more so if Palin gets in. Ron Paul is running strong even though Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are still getting the majority of the MSM coverage. Many of us see Rick Perry for the fraud he is, and many have already pledged not to support Mitt in any capacity. Add to that the growing support Ron Paul is getting and the numbers of us who will not vote for any other then him in 2012 and we might for the first time since 1948 see a real brokered RNC Convention.

The new rules will allow for candidates who receive at least 10% of the vote to obtain a proportion of the delegates based on their total percentage in the primary unless 1 candidate gets 51% or higher. The new rules as amended will allow the Campaign to choose their delegates as usual and will avoid the hassle of signature collection and ballot challenges from other campaigns or even the democrat party. There are some very influential spokespeople on both sides of this issue. I for one support it, I think the proposed changes are a good idea. If you feel strongly about this I suggest you call the SCC members to share your opinion.

CD Committeeman Home Email

1. Steven Daglas (708) 943-1913 sdaglas@sbcglobal.net

2. Judy A. Diekelman (708) 877-6565 diekelmanj@aol.com

3. Angel Garcia (312) 375-0979 angeldgarcia@gmail.com

4.Vacnt

5. Angelo Skip Saviano (708) 453-7598 skip@skipsaviano.com

6. Chris Kachiroubas (630) 832-0778 katch99@msn.com

7. Carol Smith Donovan (312) 643-0730 carol.smith.donovan@gmail.com

8. Eugene R. Dawson (847) 381-8817 erdaw@comcast.net

9. John Dorgan (847) 698-0630 jmdgop@yahoo.com

10.Tolbert Chisum (847) 251-4967 tchisum@aol.com

11.Richard S. Williamson (847) 251-2927rwilliamson@salisburystrategies.com

12.Barbara J. Peterson (708) 946-2331 bjp2124@aol.com

13.Deb Detmers (618) 259-6374 ddetmers@charter.net

14.Roger C. Claar (630) 759-3232 bbmayor@aol.com

15.Jim Oberweis (630) 466-4886 joberweis@oberweis.net

16.Jerry Clarke (217) 649-7805 jerrytclarke@yahoo.com

17.Dave Syverson (815) 282-4200 sen1@aol.com

18.Judy Dudek (309) 647-7968 jdudek1955@sbcglobal.net

19.Michael S. Bigger (309) 695-6338 m.bigger@mchsi.com

20.Demetra K. DeMonte (309) 347-4397 demetrademonte@gmail.com

21.Bob Winchester (618) 285-3636 bobwinchester@hotmail.com

Today's Libertarians are the real Conservatives

Yes I believe today's Libertarians are the real Conservatives in the political spectrum. I know many people such as Popular Media Personality Mark Levin take issue with this idea so I'm not going to ask you to take my word for it. Instead ask Ronald Reagan, who Mark Levin worked for and continually holds up as an marquee example of Modern Conservatism. The following is excerpt from a 1975 interview with Ronald Reagan featured in Reason Magazine.

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

If Ronald Reagan said it, it must be true, right?

The Term Conservative did not come into regular use until the 1950's. First published in 1976, and revised in 1996, George H. Nash’s book "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America" has become the unquestioned standard in the field of modern conservatism. It's history starts in 1945 and Chapter one is titled "The Revolt of the Libertarians".

Few people back then used the word Conservative until a book was published in 1953 by Russel Kirk called the "Conservative mind". The "National Review" a mainstream Conservative magazine didn't begin until 1955.

People like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh today help enforce the idea that Libertarians are not Conservative when nothing could be farther from the truth. In actuality Today's Modern Conservatives are no longer Conservative.


Cheers,

Mike

Sarah Palin 2012

Now that Sarah Palin has stepped aside as Governor of Alaska she'll be able to position herself as a serious candidate for 2012. I think it's funny how all the Liberal talking heads are already coming out today and saying this is the end of her political career. This may just be the beginning of her next step in her career. Liberals would like nothing more than see her down and out, wishful thinking I'll say. She may be the most real politician we've seen in a long, long time and this is what allot of people are eager for.

I for one am a fan, I'll support her. I know many are against her saying, "she needs to bone up on her foreign Policy knowledge". I'd vote for her with no Foreign Policy Knowledge. We as a nation need to start worrying less about what every other nation is doing, let's focus on the U.S. When we have our stuff neatly tied up and in order than we can go back to being the helping hand of the world.

Sarah Palin had more Executive Experience than Barack Obama and had just as much experience in foreign affairs as he did, which was NONE. Yet, when she ran as McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, she was treated like a worthless idiot. How many people traveled far and wide to go see Sarah Palin? Than this moronic McCain aid come out and blames her for their loss. I'm sorry but you got as close as you did because of Palin. I can't imagine another figure that would have drawn the kind of crowds that Sarah Palin drew.

If she does decide to run in 2012 I'd be torn between her and Mike Huckabee. How about a Palin/Huckabee ticket? Unless some other independent comes along that really has the right stuff That's where I'll be directing my attention.

Cheers,

Mike

Letter to the RNC

I borrowed this from a fellow 912 member.

To the RNC:
I have answered your question in regards to 2009 Republican Party
Census Document. I am unwilling to contribute financially to the
Republican Party at this time due to the following reasons:
1.I believe the current leadership of the party has strayed from the
people that support it.
2.I believe that current leadership has lost sight of the values and
principles of the people who support them.
3.I can not see any difference between the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party at this time.
4.I believe that there are too many Republican Elected Officials that
are more interested in retaining their elected office then they are in
representing the people that elected them.
5.I believe there are too many Republican Elected Officials that are
only interested in what power they can gain.
Until the Republican Party has candidates that are willing to run on
honesty, values, and principles I am unwilling to give my hard earned
money to support the current way business is being done.
There is a great many of us out here that are dissatisfied with how
our country is being destroyed. Some of us have decided to not just
vote party the line anymore, we will be researching and watching all
potential candidates to determine the best candidate for the job. I am
willing to vote for Republican Candidates that show honesty, values,
and principles it is your job to provide these candidates.

Will the real Collin Powell please stand up?

I would like to hear from Colin Powell himself on why he seems to have shifted his loyalty so far the the left. Does he consider himself a Democrat now? I've been hearing and reading allot lately about how he went with Obama because he's black. There has got to be more than just race at play. Powell was on the Regan Team as well as Both Bush Teams. The Obama team is so far in the other direction that something has to give.

Colin Powell could very well have been President of U.S. had he chosen to run. He declined after declaring himself a Republican in 1995. He won the Vice Presidential Primary in New Hampshire based on Write-in votes (A race he did not officially run in). In 2000 He campaigned for John McCain, but then supported Bush after he won the primary. Why did he not support John McCain again? Was it simply race? Or is there something else?

We know politically Powell has been a Moderate on Military issues. If you believe some of the stories that have gone around like scenes from the Movie "W", he was not happy about how Bush Jr. handled Iraq. If true he did not like the approach Cheney pushed though and Believed the U.S. going back to Iraq was a bad idea. Was he in fact so upset about how it all turned out that he decided to stick it to his party? Did he feel like he was used a pawn?

There are allot of questions that need to be clarified before we hang Mr. Powell out to dry. Many of these can only be answered by him, so let's give him the chance to set the record straight before we pack and ship him off to the Democrats.

Cheers,

Mike

The Young Cons !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
http://www.theyoungcons.com/
These guys are pretty funny, and they send a real message. We need
more of this, young people who understand how the world works and
aren't afraid to speak out even if it's not currently popular.