[Libloather]

This was mentioned at the convention - yes?

[ColdOne]

"I am a Catholic and I accept the...............read up to that point and puked.

[Jacquerie]

In order to be a democrat, one has to reject the Declaration of Independence.

[Faith]

Senator Kaine, is murder against Catholic doctrine? If so, perhaps you should not support any legislation that opposes it so as to avoid inflicting your church view on Americans.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Like all supposed Catholic Democrats, Kaine speaks with forked tongue.

[HarleyLady27]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265190-clinton-email-release-brings-classified-total-to-1340

[Twinkie]

When abortion “rights” demonstrations first began, I was
fairly young. I didn’t back it. The feminists said they
wanted it “safe, legal, and RARE”. Well, abortion has
turned into MILLIONS of dead human beings, sold in bulk to
the highest bidder as a “product”. HORRORS! To think. Women
back then were manipulated by pictures of SIMPLE COAT
HANGERS! - Genocide. Don’t get me started on GENOCIDE,
especially against BLACK PEOPLE. I call it “Margaret
Sanger’s cruel joke against black people”. Only I think
she called them “Negroes”.

[ealgeone]

"My voting position on abortion hasn't really changed," Kaine said in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union." "I am a Catholic and I accept the church's teaching on this issue, but I do not believe that the job of somebody in public life is to basically say, 'I'm a Catholic so my job is to make our lives consistent with Catholic doctrine and make everybody follow it.

many will come bearing false witness.

[loveliberty2]

What "devout" Catholic can deny the simple logic of Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, stated: And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of murder, ambushes, and terrorists among us.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. Voters might examine each candidate's previous voting record carefully on all issues, because past actions are the best predictors of future decisions.

What "devout" Catholic can deny the simple logic of Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, stated: And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of murder, ambushes, and terrorists among us.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. Voters might examine each candidate's previous voting record carefully on all issues, because past actions are the best predictors of future decisions.

[deweyfrank]

“Hey!, our team is for both; pro life and pro killing babies”. What a team. They must be so proud. /s