Skip to comments.I WANT THE ARCH ENEMY OF THE LEFT IN THE WHITE HOUSE! PERIOD!
Posted on 04/21/2012 5:15:22 PM PDT by No!
click here to read article
Romney does have it in the bag. I will vote against him when the Texas primary rolls around.
My understanding is that the count on RCP takes pre-April proportional primaries into account.
Unpledged RNC delegates are listed at the bottom — they count 31 unpledged delegates for Romney, 2 for Santorum, 4 for Gingrich and 1 for Paul. Not sure how they got to those numbers.
If you vote against him when you can, then bless you for doing that much. If Ron Paul can take away some of the votes in TX then a vote for him will be just as effective as a vote for Newt.
You may be right in what you say. It’s hard not to be discouraged by the math. If Romney is the candidate I’ll be encouraging people to do whatever they can to vote against Obama, so I’ll meet you on the other side of the primary and lock arms however I need to in order to best protect this country.
I think if people realize how much is at stake here they could realize the need to vote for Newt, or even Ron Paul if they are former Hillary supporters or just can’t support Newt. Here is what I posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2875441/posts to show at least some of what is at stake right now:
I have to work today and tomorrow so I can’t man any of Newt’s phone banks, but if anybody can use this letter to forward in e-mails to your lists before tomorrow’s primaries, please do so:
Mitt Romney supports government-coerced abortion. He personally has made the decision to force people to provide abortions even though they believe it to be murder.
Yes, he vetoed Romneycare because it mandated abortion insurance coverage, but in Dec 2005 after his veto was overridden and the Boston Globe printed an article noting that Catholic hospitals would be exempt from providing abortions to rape victims, Romney ordered the Dept of Public Health to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. He said his legal counsel had given him a sounder view of what Romneycare meant that this law alone, of all the abortion laws passed in the 30 years since the 1975 conscience law had exempted religious institutions from having to perform abortions against their religious beliefs, nullified the conscience law even though a nullification clause had specifically been rejected by the MA legislature. Romney went further and said he personally believed it was the right thing for Catholic hospitals to commit what they believe to be murder.
Since that time, the regulations now say that the abortifacient morning-after pill must be offered by Catholic hospitals regardless of whether rape is even claimed. In other words, any woman can go to the emergency room of any Catholic hospital in MA and force the staff there to give her an abortion pill, no questions allowed to be asked.
This isnt about rape and it isnt about abortion. There are plenty of secular hospitals that will provide the morning-after pill. This is about forcing every Catholic in this country who puts a dollar bill in the collection plate to commune at the altar of government-established religion that includes abortion. Religious liberty exists no more.
Welcome to China right here in America.
Romney defends Romneycares coerced abortions by pointing out that states are not bound by the US Constitution. First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty dont apply to states. States are free to establish religion and violate religious liberty, as Romney has done in MA.
The chief way that Islamists plan to establish sharia in free countries is by establishing precedents at the more local levels and then using that precedent to force the whole country into sharia Islam forced onto everyone. Romneys claims would allow states to establish sharia.
Vote for Newt Gingrich in the Republican Presidential primary.