Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Surprise! Not. Poll finds Bernie Sanders supporters are low information voters

Last Sunday, May 26, 2019, NBC’s “Meet the Press” announced findings from two recent polls, Monmouth and Fox News, which confirm what many of us already suspected — Bernie Sanders supporters are ill informed.

In the words of “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd, the Monmouth Poll found that (o:20 mark):

“What is interesting is that, I think it was in the Monmouth Poll, the less you’re paying attention, the more likely you’re a Bernie Sanders supporter.

The polls also found that support for creepy-gropy Joe Biden and fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren has increased, whereas Bernie is losing appeal among Democrats.

Monmouth Poll is conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute — a private university in West Long Branch, New Jersey.

According to statistician Nate Silver, Monmouth Poll was one three “best-performing polls” in 2016 for its “gold standard” methodology, use of live telephone interviews, placing calls to cellphones as well as landlines, and for its participation in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

1.0
01
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Hilarious: 2020 presidential candidates as “Michael Scott”

Michael Scott is a character from the show “The Office.”

I never watched this show yet this video is pretty spot on.

It’s amazing how a TV show’s past can intersect with today’s reality.

Great job by The Washington Free Beacon!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Thursday Funnies!

. . . and political truth memes.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman really said this (Snopes)

And, lastly . . . .

Oops!

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Bernie Sanders: Faithful Christians are racist bigots, unfit for public office

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But a religious test is precisely what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) applied on June 7, 2017, in a Senate confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

To begin, Russell Vought is eminently qualified to be OMB Deputy Director. With a Bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College and a law degree from George Washington University, Vought had been:

  • Executive director and budget director of the Republican Study Committee.
  • Vice president of the conservative policy advocacy organization Heritage Action.
  • Policy director for the Republican Conference of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • Legislative assistant for U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.

Russell Voight is also an evangelical Christian.
In 2015, Vought’s alma mater, Wheaton College — an evangelical Christian institution — suspended tenured political science professor Larycia Hawkins for stating in a Facebook post that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and that she would wear a hijab in solidarity with Muslims. In a January 17, 2016 blog post, Vought weighed in on the theological debate sparked by Hawkins’ suspension. Referring to Dr. Hawkins’ suspension, Vought wrote:

“While many faculty, alumni, and outside observers are typically outraged and embarrassed by this ‘assault on academic freedom,’ I am proud of the school and hope they stand their ground. Here’s why:
First, the theological issue at stake is very important, as it pertains to what we believe about our savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human). This matters immensely for our salvation. If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve. […]
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’ In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, ‘The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.’ And in John 3:18, Jesus says, ‘Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.‘”

Note that Vought quoted Jesus’ own words that anyone who rejects Him and doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God is “condemned already”.
For that — for stating his religious beliefs — Vought was browbeaten and called “Islamophobic” and “hateful” by Bernie Sanders during the confirmation hearing for the OMB deputy directorship.
As recounted by John Daniel Davidson for The Federalist:

“On Wednesday, June 7, 2017, another Senate hearing: Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a blatant violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, was applying a religious test for an office of public trust.
Specifically, Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, ‘is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.’ […]
During the hearing Wednesday, Sanders repeatedly quoted one particular passage he described as ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘hateful.’ Vought wrote: ‘Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.’
As a matter of theology, there is of course nothing objectionable, much less Islamophobic, about that. It is simply a statement of fact: core Christian doctrine, plainly stated in the Bible, says that eternal life comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Not that exclusivity is unique to Christianity. By their very nature, most religions are exclusive, especially when it comes to salvation.
As for having a ‘deficient theology,’ one could substitute any other religious group for Muslims: Christians also believe that Jews have a deficient theology, along with Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and the tens of thousands of Britons who claim membership in the Temple of the Jedi Order. And of course, members of all these religions likely believe Christians have a deficient theology.
But to Sanders, a sincerely held religious belief—like believing there is only one path to salvation—amounts to bigotry and should disqualify anyone, or at least Christians, from public service. Reporting for The Atlantic, Emma Green noted that at one point, the exchange between Sanders and Vought became tense, with Sanders ‘raising his voice and interrupting Vought as he tried to answer questions.
Sanders: I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
Vought: Senator, I am a Christian—
Sanders: I understand that you are a Christian. But this country is made up of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?
[…] Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who defended Sanders, saying, ‘I don’t think anybody was questioning anybody’s faith here.’ Van Hollen then questioned Vought’s faith and claimed his theology is all wrong: ‘I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God.’
It should go without saying that this is the sort of thing that should never come up in a Senate confirmation hearing. […] Article VI of the Constitution states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’ Yet it seems that Sanders and his ilk not only want to exclude sincere Christians from public office, but to impose a kind of secular test of their own. […]
That’s more or less what Sanders did by conflating Vought’s thoroughly commonplace understanding of Christian theology with racism and bigotry. A spokesman for Sanders said in a statement issued Thursday: ‘In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.’ The nomination of Vought, ‘who has expressed such strong Islamaphobic language,’ the statement said, ‘is simply unacceptable.’
At the hearing on Wednesday, Sanders said he would vote against confirming Vought for deputy director of the OMB. Afterwards, Muslim groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Muslim Advocates, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Vought’s comments, saying without a hint of irony that his views threaten the principle of religious freedom.
[…] the progressives who now run the Democratic Party will turn a blind eye to the exclusivity claims of Muslims and other religious groups they think they need in their political coalition. But they will not suffer Christians. There’s a simple reason for that: Democrats know they have lost orthodox Christians as a constituency, and now they have no use for them.”

Born and raised as an American Jew, Bernie Sanders had a bar mitzvah. Although he rarely speaks about religion and describes himself as “not particularly religious,” when asked about his Jewish heritage, Sanders said he is “proud to be Jewish”. (Wikipedia)
Given that, Sanders surely must know about his Jewish heritage’s Talmud — the collection of sayings and writings by rabbis which has priority over the Torah as Judaism’s sacred scripture. The deeply Christophobic and hateful Talmud that calls Jesus Christ a “bastard”, “conjurer”, “fool”, “seducer” and “buried in hell”; Jesus’ mother a “prostitute” and “whore”; and all Christians as “idolators”, “murderers”, “bestialists”, “evil”, “unclean”, “like dung”, nonhuman “beasts”, lower than dogs, and “children of the ancient serpent”. (See Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians; and Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods.)
By his own yardstick, Bernie Sanders should never have held political office as a U.S. senator.
Yet this anti-Constitution man wanted to be President of the United States! What chutzpah.
See also:

H/t FOTM‘s stlonginus and CP.
~Eowyn

5.0
01
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Scientist wins Miss USA, slammed for ‘conservative’ comments

miss usa

Kara: Intelligent, gorgeous, and leans conservative. No wonder the proggies despise her.


Of course she was slammed. Proggies have a funny way of displaying their tolerance.
Via NY Post: A 25-year-old scientist from the District of Columbia who works for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was crowned Miss USA Sunday — and she did it after making some controversial comments about political issues during the competition.
Kara McCullough caused a firestorm on social media after she gave conservative answers to questions — saying she wasn’t a feminist and that she thought people need to have a job to have health care.
“I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege,” McCullough said, when asked if access to medical care was a right, as liberals such as Sen. Bernie Sanders say, or a privilege, as many conservatives say.
She then added: “As a government employee, I’m granted health care and I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have jobs.”
Later in the competition, McCullough and two other challengers were asked to explain what they consider feminism to be and whether they consider themselves feminists.
Miss District of Columbia replied that she likes to “transpose” the word feminism to “equalism.”
“I don’t want to call myself a feminist,” McCullough said. “Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace.”
McCullough, who graduated with a chemistry degree from South Carolina State University, said after the contest: “I believe we’ve come a long way and there is more work to be done. I think domestically we are making progress and I do believe that we will become equal one day.”
#MissUSA trended on Twitter, as many users criticized her answers. “#MissUSA Miss DC just lost me with that answer….Affordable healthcare is a privilege? Girl bye,” tweeted a user named @dazella_may.
“DC just disqualified herself with that answer #MissUSA,” a user named Keeni Rodgers piled.
Others rushed to defend her.
“Black people hating on #MissUSA because of conservative positions need to stop acting like owned brainwashed slaves to the left,” a user named Darnell Wesh said of McCullough, who is African-American.
She will go on to compete in the Miss Universe contest.
“I’m extremely thankful for this opportunity,” she said after the event, which was held at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center on the Las Vegas Strip. “I just want to encourage so many women nationwide to find their passion in any subject possible and understand that nothing is difficult if you really, truly put the work in for it.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

DNC takes its mask off

WND EXCLUSIVE:
DNC: WE RIGGED PRIMARIES. SO WHAT?

‘We could have gone into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate’


by ALICIA POWE
WASHINGTON – The Democratic National Committee is currently defending the tactics it used last year to rig the presidential primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders in a class-action lawsuit, brazenly telling voters in a court of law that the party is not obligated to run a fair and impartial primary election.
Outraged by how the DNC unfairly boosted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and cleared the way for her primary victory, supporters of Sanders and Democratic donors sued the DNC in June 2016 alleging it defrauded its constituents…
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2017/05/dnc-we-rigged-primaries-so-what/#cbHUjXZCSl9l07PF.99

It seems that evil has become more bold since Hillary lost the election and Obama was denied a surrogate third term in office

Since that moment we have seen a deliberate effort to create a violent marxist revolution in our cities. We’ve watched our colleges in flames. We have seen fights breaking out on planes. We’ve seen The DNC move from anything like the DNC of the 1960s to something like a cross between the Red Brigade and the Mafia. I have personally witnessed almost a doubling of road rage incidents in my daily driving. Perversion has not only “come out of the closet,” but is actually trying to force itself on our children in school and in media. And our late night comedians are saying things not allowed on TV 20 years ago.
At this it would be easy to give up and hand the country over to the devil. But for me that would be to forget my intercessory prayers in the last few years.
I have been praying that the Lord would lump together in one net all the trouble makers in news, entertainment, academia, politics and courts. And that He would hold them up for all to see their corruption so totally that their opinions would never be trusted again. I prayed the the people of our society would see them as they really are, and so be freed from their influence.


Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Democrat thinks Trump will beat Hillary

Trump vs Hillary
By now, the GOP Establishment’s claim that Donald Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton has become an oft-repeated trope.
So, it’s refreshing to read a Democrat saying exactly the opposite.
Steve Almond is a Bernie Sanders supporter and seriously delusional, as you’ll see when you read what he says about Hillary — that she is “brilliant” and a “compassionate public servant,” and that Benghazi and her private email server are “phony scandals”. At the very least, his essay should be good for some laughs.
Below are excerpts from Almond’s essay of March 14, 2016, for Salon.com, “Hillary will never survive the Trump onslaught,” interspersed with my comments colored yellow-green:

[…] listening to Hillary partisans explain to those of us who support Bernie Sanders just how naive we are. Only Hillary, we are told, has a real shot at winning in November. She’s the only one with a realistic grasp of how Washington works, whose moderate (and modest) policy aims might, realistically, be enacted. It often sounds as if Clinton’s central pitch to voters isn’t that she has a moral vision for the country, but that she owns the franchise on realism.
[…] Hillary’s reality brigade […] need to face the reality of what the 2016 election is going to be like with Hillary at the top of the ticket.
Before I outline that particular shitstorm, let me issue a few […] First, I myself was a Hillary supporter until Sanders entered the race. (More precisely, until I read his policy positions.)
Second, I will enthusiastically support Hillary when and if she is nominated. Years ago, I interviewed the secretary and I say now what I said then: She is a brilliant and compassionate public servant. If presidential elections in this country were based on policy positions and moral intention, on how each candidate hopes to solve common crises of state, Clinton would win going away.

[Hillary is a “brilliant and compassionate public servant”? HA HA HA HA! See “Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as first lady” and “Hillary Clinton is a monster, says Secret Service agents”.]

Alas, the reality is that Hillary is among the most hated politicians in America. There is, to begin with, her dismal favorability rating, which stands at 53 percent, with a net negative of 12 percent. (Sanders has a net positive of 12 percent.)
But even more important is the intensity of the animus against her, and the sad mountain of baggage she carries with her as a candidate.
No matter who the GOP nominee is, the battle plan against Hillary will be the same: a tawdry and unrelenting relitigation of all the phony scandals cooked up by the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that she identified nearly two decades ago.
Cue up the Pearl Jam, folks, because we’re going all the way back to the ’90s: Whitewater, Travelgate, Troopergate, Lewinskygate, with a little Vince Foster Murdergate, for a dash of blood. But wait—those are just the golden oldies! You’ll also be hearing about the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Pardons. Of course, what respectable slander campaign would be complete without the new material? Benghazi, the private email server, the Wall Street speeches?
The dark corporate money and talented propagandists aligned against Hillary will make the Swift Boat Veterans look like toy soldiers.

[Note: HA HA HA HA! Does Steve Almond not know that Wall Street, especially, Goldman Sachs, are Hillary’s biggest donors? See “The biggest Wall Street whores among 2016 presidential candidates are…”]
Wall Street donations to 2016 presidential candidates

And because our Fourth Estate is driven at this point almost entirely by the desperate promotion of scandal narratives and conflict, every one of these paid attacks will be amplified by so-called free media, or what us starry-eyed hippies used to call journalism.

[The media are against Hillary? HA HA HA HA! See “News media are big donors to Hillary’s corrupt Clinton Foundation”]

I’m not blaming Hillary for this sad state of affairs. I’m just trying to be—what’s the word I’m looking for? Ah yes, here it is—realistic about how it’s going to go down.
Republicans tend to lose when they have to talk in specific terms about policies, priorities and solutions. They win when elections are reduced to brawls and/or personality contests. (See Reagan/Carter, Bush/Kerry, et al.)
But if Donald Trump is the nominee, as seems most likely right now, he will also enjoy two genuine lines of attack against Hillary.
The first is the same one Bernie just used to upset her in Michigan: the fact that free trade pacts are wildly unpopular with many Americans. Trump has been full-throated (and, as usual, somewhat full of shit) in his condemnation of free trade, and it has been one of his most successful pitches. You can bet your bottom yen that he’ll hammer Hillary on this, as if she personally whipped votes for NAFTA. He’ll excoriate various forms of crony capitalism (deals cut with big pharma, bogus military contracts, etc.) that Democrats such as Hillary either endorsed or enabled through timidity. And he’ll blast her for backing our trillion-dollar boondoggle in Iraq, too.
These accusations will be framed in terms of a larger narrative: that Hillary represents business as usual in Washington, that she’s just another career pol beholden to the donor class and to the Wall Street swells who paid her millions to deliver her secret speeches.
Trump may be a sexually insecure adolescent with a penchant for inciting racial violence, but the one undeniable aspect of his appeal is that he recognizes the toxic nature of the status quo and will, by sheer force of personality, bring it down. […]
All of which brings us back to that credulous waif from Brooklyn, by way of Ben and Jerry’s. Donald Trump can holler all he wants about how Crazy Bernie is a socialist. But he (and the super Pacs) won’t be able to distract voters by digging up scandals in his past. Nor will Trump be able to portray him as a corporate stooge.
In fact, the shocking success of the Sanders campaign is predicated on many of the same essential frustrations Trump is exploiting: corporate influence, wage stagnation, trade. This is why polls consistently show Sanders beating Trump more convincingly than Clinton does.
The right wing […] are going to have a more difficult time smearing a candidate whose biggest liabilities are his “extreme” policy positions, most of which sound more like a common sense corrective to the excesses of capitalism. Higher taxes on corporations and the super-wealthy? Healthcare as a right? A higher minimum wage? Increased funding for education and infrastructure? Good luck demonizing those positions, Big Donald.

My favorite Salon readers’ comment on Almond’s delusional essay is by Sicilian Papa:

Trump vs. Clinton? She better hope she wins because Trump will prosecute her.

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Supporters of socialist Bernie Sanders can't define socialism

Supporters of a socialist can’t define socialism. It’ s like it is 2008 all over again.
I weep for the future of our country.

DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Clinton voter fraud at Iowa Caucus?

This morning, the powerhouse Drudge Report has a link to a YouTube video with the title, “Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus,” with this description:

The first chance they got they commit voter fraud.

Anything to which Drudge Report links, automatically takes on a sheen of credibility.
The video is a segment from CSPAN’s live coverage of the Democratic caucus of Polk County’s precinct #43, held in Roosevelt High School, Des Moines, on February 1, 2016.
In the caucus, votes were tallied by a primitive method of hand counting the raised hands of the people in the room. Bernie Sanders supporters are pointing to the video, claiming it showed there was Clinton voter fraud in Precinct #43 because of the discrepancy between the results of the first and second hand-counts.
 
Sanders won the first hand-count:

215 Sanders + 210 Clinton + 26 O’Malley + 8 Undecided = 459 Total

But Hillary won the second hand-count:

232 Clinton +  224 Sanders + 0 O’Malley = 456 Total

In other words, they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 22, making her the winner of Precinct #43’s caucus.
Here’s the video:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNz-dtnQ1Ys&feature=youtu.be]
The video begins with a woman in a red “Bernie” t-shirt doing a second hand count of Sanders supporters. At the 0:43 mark, she announces the result: 223!
At the 1:20 mark, a heavy-set woman with short brown hair in a blue t-shirt says the count for Hillary is 232. At the 1:40 mark, she says that some people had already left the caucus — “some people walked out the door” — which would account for why the total of the second hand count (456) was 3 fewer than the first hand count (459).
Beg. at 4:23 mark in the video, Precinct #43’s caucus chair Drew Gentsch announces the result of the second hand count:

232 Clinton +  224 Sanders + 0 O’Malley = 456 Total

Gentsch asked the people in the room if they wanted a recount. A majority raised their hands for “No”.
The discrepancy between the first and second hand-counts can easily be explained by the O’Malley supporters and the Undecided changing their minds:

  • Some of them went for Sanders in the second hand-count, increasing his votes by 9, from the first hand-count’s 215 to 224.
  • Others went for Hillary in the second hand-count, increasing her votes by 22, from the first hand-count’s 210 to 232.
  • The discrepancy of 3 between the total number of votes at the first and second hand-counts can be explained by “some people walked out the door”.

I know this is terribly important to Bernie Sanders supporters, and far be it for me to actually defend Hillary Clinton, but I do care about the Truth.
From the CSPAN video, I’m not convinced there was voter fraud at Precinct #43. Besides, the people at that precinct overwhelmingly consented to the results of the second hand-count by rejecting a recount. If they don’t care, why should we?
As for reports that 6 precincts used coin tosses to decide Hillary as the winner, The Atlantic points out that coin flips were used where there was a tie, and that Bernie Sanders had won a sizable share of coin tosses as well, according to information provided by the state Democratic Party.
What really dismays me about the Democratic caucus at Precinct #43, Des Moines, Iowa, are the HUNDREDS of mentally-ill useful idiots assembled in that room at Roosevelt High School:
Polk County Iowa Democratic Caucus Feb. 1, 2016
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

First 2016 Votes: Iowa Caucus results

REPUBLICANS (Cruz):

Record turnout: 52% men; 48% women

  1. Cruz: 28%; 51,649 votes; 8 delegates; 29% men; 27% women
  2. Trump: 24%; 45,416 votes; 7 delegates; 25% men; 24% women
  3. Rubio: 23%; 43,132 votes; 7 delegates; 25% men; 21% women
  4. Carson: 9%; 17,393 votes; 3 delegates
  5. Paul: 4%; 8,478 votes; 1 delegate
  6. Bush: 3%; 5,235 votes; 1 delegate
  7. Fiorina: 2%, 3,483 votes; 0 delegate
  8. Kasich: 2%; 3,473 votes; 0 delegate
  9. Huckabee: 2% 3,344 votes; 0 delegate
  10. Christie: 2%; 3,278 votes; 0 delegate
  11. Santorum: 1%; votes; 1,783 votes; 0 delegate

Source: CNN

DEMOCRATS (tie):

43% men; 57% women

  1. Clinton: 50%; 24 delegates; 44% men; 53% women
  2. Sanders: 40%; 21 delegates; 50% men; 42% women
  3. O’Malley: 1%; 0 delegate

Source: CNN

ANALYSIS:

Polling data had shown Trump with a lead in Iowa for weeks. LifeNews attributes Cruz’s win over Trump to the former’s pro-life record.
According to ThinkProgess, less than a week before the Iowa caucus, Cruz gave the hundreds of Iowans at a rally a list of his pro-life actions as U.S. Senator and former Texas solicitor general, including efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood, enact parental notification laws, and prohibit partial-birth abortion. Cruz aimed some of his comments specifically at Trump, whom some question about the sincerity of his pro-life stance. Cruz said: “Every candidate in a Republican primary says they’re pro-life. That’s what you say in a Republican primary, regardless of the facts. The question we ought to ask is, don’t tell me that you’re pro-life. Show me. When have you stood up and fought to defend the right to life?”
9 days before the Iowa Caucus, on Jan. 23, 2016, Trump finally outlined his pro-life stance in an op/ed in Washington Examiner. He said America has gone astray because we have moved away from many of this country’s founding principles, most notably the right to life. He said he is pro-life with exceptions only for the very rarest abortions:

“Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me.”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0