Skip to main content

This about sums it up...

Dear Mr. Romney:
I am a conservative who believes that the purpose of conservatism is to conserve things which are good in American and Western culture. Among these things are life and liberty.
At present, I have grave concerns that you have any serious intention of conserving these things and so I have no good reason for voting for you. Merely saying “I’m not Obama” is not enough to win my vote. Why? Because I have zero confidence that you are going to, in any significant way, overturn much of his agenda and plenty of concern that, in addition to it, you will lard on tax cuts for yourself and your class and more wars for our troops to fight.
Let me be clear. You have lied that you governed as a prolife governor. Sorry, but I have seen the multiple Youtube videos of you, as governor, proudly proclaiming your devotion to abortion. When you lie to me about your record on something as fundamental as the right to life, I have no reason to trust a word you say.
Both your sister and your wife have made clear that you have no serious interest in abortion. This is a tried and true political strategy for the GOP (just as ask the Bush women). The candidate makes prolife noises, his women say, “He doesn’t really mean it.” The women are right.
You were given a softball question about the HHS mandate recently by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. You could not bring yourself to say you would overturn it. If you are unwilling to undo the immense damage to religous liberty done by this edict, why should I vote for you? I require from you a loud and often repeated public pledge that you will do this or you can forget my vote.
You have made clear that you don’t care about the integrity of traditional marriage and will do nothing about gay “marriage”. If that does not change with loud and repeated pledges to oppose gay “marriage” you can forget my vote.
You use enthusiastic endorsement of torture (yes, waterboarding is torture and is but one of the criminal methods we used in both torturing and murdering prisoners, several of them documentably innocent) in our War on Terror. Just as I will not vote for a candidate who supports abortion and the crushing of religious liberty and conscience and the legalization of gay “marriage”, so I will not vote for a candidate who supports the use of torture.
Finally, although I was disgusted by your remarks which strongly suggest that half the American people are motivated by welfare parasitism in supporting your opponent. Many of our troops (a body to which neither you nor your sons have ever belonged) are forced to live on welfare and food stamps while defending you back home has you pursue power and wealth and your party leads the charge to cut their pay and benefits still further.
Make a public and frequent renunciation of the grave evils of abortion, the HHS mandate, gay “marriage” and torture and I will consider voting for you. Pledge, loudly, repeatedly and publicly that you will see to it that our brave and self-sacrificial troops receive the pay and benefits they deserve, instead of the contempt you heaped on them when you thought you were only speaking to your rich and smug peers, and I will consider voting for you. Pledge that you will bring them home instead of expanding into still more imperial pre-emptive wars and I will consider rewarding you with my vote.
And be aware that if you make these promises and then break them–if dare to betray my support for you–I will do everything in my power to punish you and your party at the ballot box and financially, and I will do everything I can to mobilize all the other supporters of human life and liberty to do likewise. We do not serve you, Mr. Romney. You serve us. We will not shut up and get in line behind you. We will not be stampeded by “lesser of two evils” rhetoric about how we have to vote for you or Obama will win. Do right and you will be rewarded by your employers, the American people. Do evil, and we will punish you and your party.
We will no longer be played.
Sincerely,

From Mark Shea's blog

Comments

Nice blog work. I came across your blog while “blog surfing” using the Next Blog button on the Nav Bar located at the top of my blogger.com site. I frequently just travel around looking for other blogs which exist on the Internet, and the various, creative ways in which people express themselves. Thanks for sharing.

Popular posts from this blog

Worth Quoting

There are but three social arrangements which can replace Capitalism: Slavery, Socialism, and Property.                                                                                                 --Hilaire Belloc                                                                                                The Servile State

Good reads of 2009

I haven't made a list like this in a while, and I believe I discussed most of these on the blog as I finished them, but I thought I'd make a handy short-hand list for you and me. These are only in the order I read them and do not indicate any preference. The Open Door * Frederica Mathewes-Green The Children of Hurin * J.R.R. Tolkien The Omnivore's Dilemma * Michael Pollan Agrarianism and the Good Society: Land, Culture, Conflict, and Hope * Eric T. Freyfogle Wonderful Fool * Shusaku Endo Up the Rouge: Paddling Detroit's Hidden River * Joel Thurtell and Patricia Beck Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation * Rodney Clapp (I started the following in December, but I haven't finished them--so far they are excellent: Love and Hate in Jamestown * David A. Price and The Picture of Dorian Gray * Oscar Wilde) Try one of these--let me know.

Independent Women?

      During breakfast today I was reading an excerpt from a play in The New York Times Magazine (I know, I was a day behind and read Saturday's edition yesterday) entitled Rust .  The play, written by a professor at Grand Valley State University, here in Michigan, is a nonfiction drama about the closing of a GM plant in Wyoming, MI.  The play itself sounds interesting and I enjoyed the excerpt, but what caught my eye was something a character said.  The character is "Academic" and plays a historian and guide to the playwright, also a character.  He is explaining the rise of the automobile factories and the effect of the car on American culture.  He says, "Women became independent, they go from producers of food and clothing to consumers of food and clothing."  This was meant as an earnest, praiseworthy point.     I would counter with "How far we've fallen."  To say that a woman (or a man) is independent because she has moved from producer to cons