Stop The ACLU’s Founder Back!

Filed under: ACLU, TB, Politics

Jay Stephenson, Founder of Stop The ACLU is back from deployment in Iraq. Thank you, Jay, for your invaluable service and dedication to our great country.

From the sound of things, I think he’s going to let me continue to blog on his site too. Thank you for allowing me the honor of being a guest blogger for you in your absence. Your blog is widely read and it’s been a pleasure helping with your cause.

Here is this week’s Stop The ACLU Blogburst…

AP: ACLU says Maricopa County violated TB patient’s rights

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit claiming Maricopa County officials have violated the rights of a quarantined tuberculosis patient for months by treating him like a criminal. The U.S. District Court complaint filed Wednesday on behalf of Robert Daniels alleges that health officials and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have violated numerous constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit seeks what it calls appropriate accommodations for Daniels, rather than severe and “inhumane” jail conditions.“It’s good news for me,” Daniels said Wednesday evening. “I finally have a chance to get out of this black hole.” Robert England, the county’s tuberculosis control officer, declined comment. Daniels, 27, is under a court order and has been isolated in a jail ward at Maricopa Medical Center for 10 months, although he was not convicted or charged with any crime.

Linda Cosme, an attorney for Daniels, said her client has been victimized by constitutional violations.“Robert is helpless,” she said. “And he’s at the mercy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He needs as much support as possible, and the ACLU is supplying that support.”

Arpaio maintains Daniels must abide by security measures. “I run a safe jail, and he’s going to be treated like anyone else,” Arpaio said. Daniels moved to Arizona in January 2006 after contracting extreme multi-drug-resistant TB. Daniels, who spent his teen years in Scottsdale, said he returned to the U.S. from Russia in search of work and a college education.

Months later, after he became severely ill, Daniels was placed in a county sanitarium for indigent TB patients. Dr. Maricela Moffitt, a county physician, has testified that Daniels failed to take his medications and that decreased the likelihood that last-chance drugs would cure his deadly disease.Moffitt claims Daniels endangered others by going out in public and entertaining visitors without wearing a mask.

Arpaio said his office is considering possible criminal charges against Daniels. In his defense, Daniels has insisted that he did not understand the contagiousness or gravity of his condition.

“In his defense…” BS. This guy has been receiving medical advice and treatment for some time. Being committed to a treatment facility for “indigent TB patients” sounds to me like he’s getting all this for free…free TO HIM, of course, but not free to me. I raise the BS flag once more regarding the alleged “inhumane” conditions of the facility and may even go over and visit for myself, although I won’t be sharing a Mountain Dew with poor little “helpless Robert” if I get a chance to check it out.

By refusing to comply with measures that would minimize the risk of spreading this deadly disease, he has made his own bed. People who knowingly put the lives of others in danger just, it seems, for the hell of it or at least out of a blatant disregard for anyone else, should be subject to criminal charges. Good for Sherriff Joe. Shame on the ACLU.

House of Pelosi

Filed under: Murtha, Rogers, Democrats, Republicans, Politics, Pelosi

Via FRC: Democrats last year unseated the Republican Majority in the U. S. House in part by alleging a Republican culture of corruption. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to transform America with the most ethical Congress this country had ever seen. Five months into her reign, you can add that pledge to a list of broken promises.

First, Pelosi tried to place a man under investigation for corruption, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), on the Homeland Security Committee. After that debacle, she put Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who has been accused by the F.B.I. of misusing federal funds, in charge of the committee that oversees the investigative agenda. Now comes word her consigliere, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), has used his position to break the rules in securing millions of taxpayer dollars in an earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center–a building both the Government Reform Committee and General Accounting Office say is unnecessary.

When confronted about his impropriety, Murtha threatened Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) with a cut-off of federal funds to his district. Of course, the AP pushes blame on Rogers in this release:

On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha — upset by Rogers’ aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha’s home district — said something along the lines of “I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.”

Rogers said he replied by saying, “This is not the way we do things here” and “is that supposed to make me afraid of you?”

“That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said, according to Rogers.

The House code of official conduct states that a congressman “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another member.”

Murtha said in a statement released Friday,”The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration. We have extensive hearings and every request is given careful consideration. We will continue to do just that.”

The conflict seems to have begun last Friday, when Rogers introduced legislation that would have stripped $23 million in funding from the House Intelligence Act designated for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a project created in 1993 to centralize and coordinate drug intelligence. Located in Johnstown, Pa., in Murtha’s district, the NDIC employs approximately 400 of his constituents.

Last week, House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Murtha.

But should Democrats need Republicans to submit such a bid? Or should they simply do the right thing?

We can’t expect them take care of their “own children” when they do wrong, but Democrats are proficient in dragging corrupt Republicans into the center circle. But, you might argue, Republicans should have handled Foley themselves when they had the majority. Absolutely, you’re right.

But when Pelosi promises “the most ethical Congress” this country has ever seen and amasses nearly as many strikes against Democrats in 5 months as Republicans did in six years, we can’t wait to see what the next 2 years of a Democrat majority hold. Certainly not much to benefit anyone other than those in power. And why should it matter? There is no “War on Terror” anyway…

Back to Blogging

Back in the saddle today after a week vacation. Posting will resume later today tomorrow.

ACLU Challenges School Board-Approved Bible Class

Filed under: ACLU, Ector County, Bible, Politics, Church and State, Humanism

The ACLU is challenging an elective Bible history class, which was approved by the Ector County School Board in December 2005, that it is “promoting religion.” Quick question: do science classes “promote science?” Just wondering. Another question: Are electives optional?

The course [called "The Bible in History and Literature"] is now taught in two high schools in Odessa, Texas — Permian High School and Odessa High School. Rather than teaching about the Bible objectively in a historical or literary context, the course promotes religion, as well as a particular religious viewpoint, that is not shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and many Protestants. The course uses the King James Version as its main textbook, which is not the Bible of choice for a wide range of Christian denominations, nor for members of the Jewish faith.

The KJV is about as neutral as you can get in a Bible history class. There is no way to please every person in every religion in every denomination. Hence the board’s choice to make the class an elective and to use a widely-read version.

“Parents, not public schools, should teach religious beliefs to children,” says Dr. T. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Governments and public schools have no business deciding which religious beliefs are true and then using public schools to proselytize children.”

Exactly! I couldn’t agree more. Wonder where Dr. Gunn stands on evolution. Abstinence programs. Handing out condoms. Bet I know. And he wants to accuse the Bible elective class of proselytizing. Thanks for the laugh, Doc. If this is what a “highly qualified education” in one of our fine liberal, humanist universities does for you, no thanks.

“It’s important to remember that the Bible could be taught constitutionally in schools,” says Gunn. “Bible education per se is not unconstitutional if the course is designed to be objective.”

The lawsuit asks that the Ector County School Board be ordered to refrain from teaching the Bible course or any course like it that would unconstitutionally promote religion or particular religious beliefs.

First, the course is designed to be objective. Unless the teachers are circumventing the course design, which from reading the plaintiff’s statements is not the case, the ACLU has no argument here.

Second, the ACLU is cashing in on their liberal allies in the court who believe the Constitution is not relevant for today’s cases. We must make it a “living, breathing document” to adapt to modern times. Nevermind the Constitutional process of amending it to keep up, should the need arise. No, liberals just strategically install “breathingist” judges in the court to cut that step out for them.

If government is not intended to promote religion, why would Gouverneur Morris, a Constitutional penman, say this: “Education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God.”

The Amnesty Trade-Off

Filed under: Immigration, Amnesty, Politics, J. Wellington Wimpy

The immigration reform that we were hoping would not come, did. It’s amnesty. Did we really think we could avoid it?

A bipartisan group of senators reached agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul to grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border against new ones…

It set the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush’s top non-war priorities.

The group of lawmakers had been haggling over the terms of agreement for weeks were reviewing language negotiated Wednesday night in efforts to nail down a deal. Among the final sticking points was a stubborn dispute over how much family ties count toward green cards under a new “point system.” The plan prioritizes advanced skills and education levels for future immigrants.

Michelle Malkin is absolutely livid about the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill and appropriately titles it the “J. Wellington Wimpy Plan:”

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

Amnesty is the hamburger. Enforcement is the payment that will never come. I’ve reported this reality over and over and over and over and over again. All the leaked memos and graphs and analysis in the world, however, cannot sum up the deportation/enforcement/border security sham–and the mess at DHS–more clearly than the reality expressed by an illegal alien quoted by the Associated Press today:

“If I get deported and need to cross the border again, that’s not a problem,” he said.

It was true in 1986. It’s as true as ever in 2007. Wimpy will get his amnesty burgers and the Beltway fools who keep deluding themselves about the false promise of immigration enforcement will be left empty-handed. Again.

Hot Air has plenty of reactions:

Illegal aliens don’t like the bill either, a claim which will doubtless be trumpeted by proponents to “prove” that it’s a fair compromise. Actually, what it proves is that even the amnesty side of it is crap that won’t achieve what it means to.

Captain Ed addresses a variety of objections to the bill. But this quote provides correct context for the radical “deport ‘em all” view:

Now, let’s say we can summon up the vast resources it would take to send 10,000 people a month through that long, laborious process. (In comparison, we have 16,000 murders a year, and it sometimes takes years to resolve the cases.) It would still take 100 years to deport all 12 million illegals in that manner — while clogging our courts, eating up our law-enforcement resources, and disrupting American commerce and politics for a century, all while we’re fighting a war with radical Islamist terrorists.

Any takers? It’s just not going to happen.

Captain Ed also is clear why he offers his support for the plan:

My support is based on firm triggers based on border security and employment verification — in other words, that the compromise exists as described by the Republican Senators who helped craft it, especially Jon Kyl, who has been a very loyal Republican.

It’s not great, and it’s not even very good. It’s not bad, though, and given our lack of strength in Congress and the White House on this issue, it’s a good deal that will strengthen our national security now rather than wait another two years to address it. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

Wizbang is ready to take over Mexico.

I don’t care if we annex them, invade and conquer them, buy them outright, or just make ‘em an offer they can’t refuse. Making Mexico part of the United States will solve a lot of problems.

And goes on to list five reasons why.

The Irate Nation trackbacked with: The Amnesty Trade-Off

Busting Planned Parenthood

Filed under: Planned Parenthood, Abortion, Politics, Liberalism

Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about women, children, or families. They DO care about money, power and influence. And they need abortion to be as legal as possible to continue their rampage on killing babies. Now, Planned Parenthood is under fire after one of its employees was recorded encouraging a student to lie about her age in order to obtain an abortion.

Lila Rose, an 18-year-old sophomore at the University of California Los Angeles, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in the city, posing as a 15-year-old impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. The visit was part of an investigation for The Advocate, a new pro-life magazine distributed on the UCLA campus.

California law requires abortion clinics to report instances of statutory rape to police. The age of consent in California is 16.

In covertly-filmed video of the meeting between Rose and an unnamed Planned Parenthood employee, the staffer is heard to tell Rose: “If you’re 15, we have to report it … If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to.”

“Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?” Rose asks.

“You could say 16,” the worker replies, later adding, “Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”

Legal abortion is not enough for these extreme Leftists. They need to kill and lie to do it.

Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California – the state public policy office of Planned Parenthood – criticized Rose’s tactics.

“We believe the individuals behind this are doing this not out of motivation to protect teens but in fact to discredit Planned Parenthood,” Kneer said of Rose and her male accomplice. “They went in with an objective to manipulate our staff, and they did succeed in manipulating our staff.”

Uh, Ms. Kneer, by discrediting Planned Parenthood, they ARE protecting teens. And this “discrediting” didn’t take much effort either. You shot yourself in the foot this time.

Rose defended her undercover methods, which she said provides “the way to find out what really goes on behind closed doors in a clinic, what really goes about to influence these life-changing decisions.”

“The staff gave an incorrect answer,” Kneer said of the employee who suggested that Rose lie about her age. “She should have said, ‘It’s reportable’ and ended the conversation there. But she allowed herself to be manipulated by Lila, and that’s against our policy.”

Kneer said Planned Parenthood “immediately notified all of our staff and reminded them that this is in violation of our policy, and we continue to do that on a regular basis.”

Should have said? Absolutely! But she didn’t. Ms. Kneer’s defense is based entirely on hindsight. Policy says one thing, while employees are doing another. That’s called lying Ms. Kneer. And you have no excuses.

Today’s Vent at Hot Air covers in depth:

Some investigative journalists earn accolades from their MSM peers. Others don’t.

Michelle Malkin has the YouTube posted:

Roe v. Wade Losing Public Support

Filed under: Abortion, Roe v Wade, Ethics, Politics

Still working on the road today. What happens when people learn the facts about Roe v. Wade? An increasing number think it should be overturned. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

A national public opinion survey (pdf) released this week shows that many people who know the facts about Roe v. Wade — the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion — think it should be overturned.

The survey, commissioned by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Judicial Confirmation Network and conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc., was completed earlier this month.

“Public opinion on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is significantly affected by a focus on the conditions under which abortion is allowed by the ruling,” the survey report stated.

David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the survey confirms what he’s known for years.

“If you just ask about Roe v. Wade, there’s majority support for it. Using the slogans of modern business, Roe v. Wade is a ‘brand’ that has been sold to the American people by the media,” O’Steen said. “But if you describe what Roe v. Wade does, then a majority doesn’t support it.”

In response to the survey’s first question – “Would you like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, or not?” – 55 percent said Roe should not be overturned; just 35 percent indicated it should.

Support for Roe varied depending on circumstances. Seventy-five percent of respondents said they supported abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, and 77 percent said it should be legal if the pregnancy poses a health risk or if it resulted from rape or incest. If the preborn child was diagnosed with a “serious physical or mental deformity,” abortion support dropped to 55 percent.

Seventy-nine percent said abortion should not be legal if “the woman does not like the gender of the fetus”; 72 percent said it should be illegal if the woman believes the child would interfere with her life; and 65 percent said a lack of financial stability does not make it right.

Respondents were then told that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion in every circumstance presented – and were again asked if it should be overturned. This time, 48 percent said it should not be overturned; 43 percent said it should be.

“While many Americans will say they support Roe v. Wade,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action, “most don’t know it allows unrestricted abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy.”

Roe is more of a brand or a household name than a precedent-setting case for most people today. If it ever does get overturned, states will be able to decide. But to get overturned, enough people need to be better educated about the crimes this ruling legalized.

Falwell Passes Away

Filed under: Fallwell, Christianity, Politics, Moral Majority

UPDATED 11:00 PM – Gay community reacts. Scroll for update…

I took a break this afternoon during a conference I’m attending and was shocked and mortified to see the headline that Dr. Jerry Falwell had passed away this morning.

LYNCHBURG, Va. — The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the folksy, small-town preacher who used the power of television to found the Moral Majority and turn the Christian right into a mighty force in American politics during the Reagan years, died Tuesday at 73.

Falwell was found without a pulse in his office at Liberty University and pronounced dead at a hospital an hour later. Dr. Carl Moore, Falwell’s physician, said he had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

Driven into politics by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established the right to an abortion, Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. One of the conservative lobbying group’s greatest triumphs came just a year later, when Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Falwell credited the Moral Majority with getting millions of conservative voters registered, aiding in Reagan’s victory and giving Republicans control of the Senate.
“I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved,” he said when he stepped down as Moral Majority president in 1987.

Fellow TV evangelist Pat Robertson, himself a one-time GOP candidate for president, pronounced Falwell “a tower of strength on many of the moral issues which have confronted our nation.”

The rise of Christian conservatism — and the Moral Majority’s full-throated condemnation of homosexuality, abortion and pornography — made Falwell perhaps the most recognizable figure on the evangelical right, and one of its most controversial ones, too.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State could not conceal his giddiness in his official statement:

Jerry Falwell politicized religion and failed to understand the genius of our Constitution, but there is no denying his impact on American political life. He will long be remembered as the face and voice of the Religious Right.

Falwell manipulated a powerful pulpit in exchange for access to political power and promotion of a narrow range of moral concerns. I appeared with him on news programs dozens of times over the years and, while I disagreed with just about everything Falwell stood for, he was a determined advocate for what he believed.

Americans United extends its condolences to members of Dr. Falwell’s family, the congregants of Thomas Road Baptist Church and the students and staff of Liberty University.

Barry needs a refresher course in tact, compassion not to mention politics and the Constitution. Keep your condolences, Barry. You need them more than his family does. Like most normal humans, the Falwell family would rather have true, heartfelt remarks than the lukewarm insult sandwich you’ve offered today.

UPDATED 11:00 PM – Gay community reacts.

“Jerry Falwell was one of the first and most visible advocates of a more-than-30-year-old movement to bring fundamentalist Christianity into the political sphere in ways that are particularly vicious and painful to millions of LGBT people around the country,” read a press release by the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center’s executive director.

“He blamed gays and lesbians for the tragedies of September 11. He fought to block civil rights for LGBT Americans,” wrote Thom Lynch. “Perhaps this will signal the end of an era and allow us to find ways to live and co-exist in a pluralistic democracy.”

Lynch closed: “We wish Rev. Falwell’s family as much peace and comfort as is possible during what will most surely be a difficult time for them.”

Meanwhile, a so-called “anti-memorial” is being planned in the city, where gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders plan to speak out about Falwell’s past efforts to demonize the gay community.

An anti-memorial? This is border-line Westboro-Phelps insanity. He’s completely out of touch with reality. Apparently, so is the gay community. I don’t deny that homosexuals are entitled to their opinions, but their choice of timing and method of displaying their choices are horrendous and embarrassing to the entire country.

Falwell did not single out gays in regards to 9/11, as implied by the statement. He included their sinful lifestyle choice in a list of sins that America has continued to tolerate implying that God might have allowed the punishment of 9/11 for these sins. And he did fight to block civil rights from them because they aren’t a minority. They are men and women who have chosen a sinful sexual lifestyle, which is fine, unless you attempt to obtain special rights, as gays are doing.

As far as a wish for peace? They have it already. As it goes for Barry Lynn, keep yours. You obviously need peace and comfort in your darkened hearts far more than Falwell’s family.

Found another classy quote today from Rev. BigDumbChimp:

I have sympathy for the family but the world is a better place. Good riddence.

F*ck you Falwell. If there was a hell you’d surely be heading there now.

Of course, I edited the quote for publication here. Wow, more maturity from the atheist crowd.

ACLU Fails in School Censor Effort

Filed under: First Amendment, Ouachita district, Prayer, Politics, Christianity

Traveling on the road today and came across this little piece of good news from Liberty Counsel who successfully defended against the ACLU in a case that saw them trying to deceive Americans into believing prayer at a Louisiana high school graduation is unconstitutional.

Ouachita, LA – The graduating seniors at the six high schools in the Ouachita Parish School District voted to have a fellow student give a message during this week’s graduation ceremonies. Up in arms over the possibility the students will include religious themes or prayer at graduation, the ACLU issued a letter accusing the district of “trying to do an end-run around the Constitution with the so-called student-led prayers.”

The ACLU wants the district to censor prayer and religious messages from graduation, even if presented by students. The Louisiana chapter of the ACLU has intentionally ignored the distinction between school-sponsored prayer as contrasted with prayer or religious speech that is solely the decision of the students. In Adler v. Duval County School Board, Liberty Counsel successfully defended, against the ACLU, a graduation policy governing student speech. The school district implemented the legal principle established in the Adler case and, therefore, permits students to determine whether they want a fellow student to present a message. If so, the elected student is then permitted to present a message of his or her own choice.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, was the lead counsel who successfully defended against the ACLU in the Adler case. The case went to the trial court twice, the federal court of appeals five times (twice before a panel of 12 judges) and to the U.S. Supreme Court twice. This case recognized that public schools are safe when they adopt an equal access policy for graduation, where students or other speakers are permitted to present a secular or religious message of their choice.

Liberty Counsel’s “Friend or Foe” Graduation Prayer Campaign seeks to educate and, if necessary, litigate to ensure that prayer and religious views are not suppressed during graduation.

Commenting on the matter, Staver remarked: “As long as there are graduations, there will be times when prayer and religious messages are part of the ceremonies. Religious viewpoints cannot be excluded from graduation ceremonies. When the message is the choice of the student or the speaker, religious viewpoints, including prayer, are permissible. The ACLU is wrong – schools must not censor private religious speech from graduation.”

While the ACLU cherry-picks a minuscule number of cases per year to defend Christians, they are never related to the Free exercise clause, which is what the vast majority of these cases are. Though, it’s more likely that these cases can be counted on one hand, it renders that argument null.

More important to see from this case, is mounting legal precedent against organizations like the ACLU that are completely incapable of distinguishing between a religious freedom and an attempt at religious establishment as intended within the framework of the Constitution. The ACLU’s “mud throwing” of breathingist cases is beginning to be washed away as cases like Adler, small as they are, begin to gain prominence, will aid in re-educating the next generation of lawyers, judges, politicians, and media members in what religious liberties are afforded in the First Amendment.

Guliani’s Split-Personality Disorder

Filed under: Rudy Giuliani, Abortion, Homosexuality, Politics, Conservatism

After having just posted about John Edwards’ “Christian split-personality” disorder yesterday, FoxNews published an article today detailing Rudy Giuliani’s stance on abortion and homosexuality and his efforts to draw in more conservatives.

Calling it [abortion] a complex issue, Giuliani said some of his thoughts have shifted over the years, but there always have been two main pillars of his beliefs on the issue.

“One, is I believe abortion is wrong. I think it is morally wrong. And if I were asked my advice by someone who was considering an abortion, I would tell them not to have the abortion, to have the child, and if nothing else, the adoption option exists,” Giuliani said.

The second pillar, he said, is “that in a country like ours, where people of good faith, people who are equally decent, equally moral, and equally religious, where they come to different conclusions about this, … I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. … I would grant women the right to make that choice” to have an abortion.

He said those two tenets will inform his decision-making and, “it means I am open to seeking ways to limit abortion. I am open to seeking ways to reduce the number of abortions.”

As a Christian, I cannot support a candidate who has such a split-personality with their morals. Giuliani is trying to run for President of the United States as a conservative. He needs to act like one instead of telling us to act like him. Democrats won a majority by posing as conservatives last November. Conservatism won, not the Democrat party. He needs to recognize that the office of President is bigger than him.

Additionally, I agree with his first pillar, but his second pillar is inconsistent with a person of belief in God. Certainly in a country like ours people will have “different conclusions.” But that does not make them right. Abortion is murder. He knows this because of his first pillar. Since murder is illegal in this country, he cannot be pro-choice politically and pro-life personally. This split-personality disorder will not go away for him and he will find it increasingly difficult to connect with the conservative base with such a viewpoint.

Giuliani — who said he also supports rights for gay couples, but not equal rights to marriage — said Republicans must get over their differences on such narrower issues, and said he hoped voters would consider him as a candidate that can compete strongly on broader issues in a general election against Democrats.

“Those of us who believe that we have to remain on offense against terrorism, and we have to remain on offense to preserve, protect and expand our growth economy, we have got to unite in this election. Because if we don’t unite, and we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country, if we can’t figure that out, we’re going to lose this election,” said the former New York City mayor.

No, Mr. Giuliani, we need a President who doesn’t waffle on moral issues to gain the moderate vote too. We need a conservative candidate to take a stand against the onslaught of liberalism as well as terrorism in this country. In case you’ve been gone for the last 50 years, we’re fighting two wars here, Mr. Giuliani.

During a debate last week, Giuliani said it would be “OK” if Roe v. Wade were overturned, but it would also be OK if it were upheld. The landmark Supreme Court decision established the right to legalized abortion.

Giuliani also recently acknowledged that he and his ex-wife also contributed to Planned Parenthood, an abortion-rights activist group as well as abortion clinic provider.

How one can oppose abortion personally, but still support government allowing women the right to murder-on-demand, and donate money on a personal level to Planned Parenthood sends two messages. Planned Parenthood depends on actual abortions (death of babies) to make money.

Giuliani took a minor blow on Wednesday when Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to reporters during a trip to Brazil, suggested that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights shouldn’t participate in holy Communion, one of the Church’s major religious rites. Giuliani is Catholic.a

This should speak volumes to Giuliani, if he values his religion at all. But apparently he values Catholocism like Edwards does Christianity.

And according to a questionnaire Giuliani submitted to the abortion-rights activist group NARAL in 1997, obtained by FOX News, Giuliani supported partial-birth abortion and agreed with all nine abortion-rights positions on the questionnaire.

Click here to see the questionnaire.

Giuliani now supports a number of restrictions that he opposed back then, including the ban on partial-birth abortion and parental notification, as long as there is a judicial work-around.

On Friday, Giuliani said his answer to the Roe question is that he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges who would not legislate from the bench, and would interpret the Constitution to the letter of the law. The former prosecutor said there’s no way to predict how a judge would rule, adding, “I’ve been surprised more than once in court.”

Responding to a question from a student reporter, Giuliani said that while he supported partial-birth abortion, the congressional debate over the procedure that led to the 2003 federal ban made him decide the procedure was wrong. He said he also believes the ban does not reduce the right to choose because other alternatives are available.

Continuing the appoint non-breathingists to the SCOTUS is about the only good portion of Giuliani’s entire viewpoint on these two issues. But there’s also the veto pen to consider. If Democrats pass bills on either or both of these two issues that conservatives oppose, will Giuliani veto it? He hasn’t spoken about it yet and I’d need to know.

In the Edwards post, I detailed how his Christianity is split between the moral issue of helping the poor, which Edwards has politicized with his fellow Democrats into a “wealth distribution” issue. Let me get this out of the way now: Rudy Guliani is in more agreement with John Edwards on abortion and homosexuality than in helping the poor. So if the choice comes down to Edwards or Guliani, conservatives will have to go with Guliani and be thankful it’s only four years.

Conservative Culture trackbacked with: Rudy is finally honest