Replies

This convinces me that Melady, Nicholson, Flynn, Glendon and Rooney ought to sit down, shut up and stop humiliating themselves and actual Catholics who ARE pro-life and insulting the intelligence of pro-lifers by lying for Myth Romney. If Romney is a pro-lifer, then Planned Barrenhood and NARAL are pro-life too, just as pro-life as plasticman Myth will ever be.

While those five former ambassadors may be personally pro-life and even somewhat accomplished as pro-lifers, ANYONE who bel;ieves the steady stream of Romney lies does so at the peril of his/her reputation. See Cicero's #13 which is right on target. Also, you know whenever Romney lies. His lips move.

Myth CLAIMS to have become pro-life in 2005 but included abortion-on-demand for a mere $50 for all Taxachusetts babykillers the NEXT year (2006) AND put Planned Barrenhood on the board of Romneycare to protect their free-wheeling babykilling. Puhleeze!!!

THEREFORE, to the two questions posed:

1. I believe the five former ambassadors are deceived and that there is insufficient evidence to prove that any of them are lying. Also, they are, at least, quite naive if they think they can believe Myth on ANY SOCIAL ISSUE. He IS a sociopathic liar who changes his story as easily as Madonna Louise Ciccone changes "partners."

2. I believe that Myth Romney has NOT changed his mind and heart on this issue. He has changed from what he perceived to be a pro-abort Taxachusetts constituency to a concededly pro-life national constituency. If he thought Americans loved the Red Chinese, Myth Romney would memorize Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto in Mandarin and recite both on request, claiming to be a true believer in both.

We also know that Mitt Romney is a staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death.

They're just flat out lying.

Even if one was foolish enough to believe that Mitt Romney had "changed" in any way, his stated position, on his campaign website, to this day, is:

1) Judicial supremacist, anti-republican, anti-Constitution. His default position is the abortion on demand status quo, because he still thinks the courts make our laws, just like he always has.

2) Pro-choice democrat, by definition. He openly asserts that God-given, unalienable rights can be/should be decided/alienated by a democratic vote.

3) Pro-choice for states. He thinks that States can alienate the right to life if they want to, in spite of the fact that the Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires every State to equally protect the right to life of every individual person.

Thanks for at least answering the questions. :) You have more fortitude and honesty than another on the thread.

(btw, I don’t agree with your conclusions but I am very glad you took the time to think about this and provide a clear response to direct inquiries! You ought to go into electoral politics—we need more people who just answer the questions!)

God bless.