Guest Post By: Donna Galloway It’s been clear to conservatives that this is the most important election of our time and based on Obama’s presidency, by all rights it should be an easy win. All we had to do is pick a candidate and sadly we can’t even do that.

The establishment picked their next in line which is Romney and has done everything in their power hungry way to promote that he is the inevitable candidate. Why? Because they say so.  It doesn’t matter that the majority of the party doesn’t want Romney. He is the inevitable candidate because they say. Anybody but Obama is supposed to mean, stop fighting the establishment and vote for the chosen establishment candidate.  Romney’s got the money right and all the campaign staff that money can buy, doesn’t he? Reality, Romney and the establishment will not be able to buy the general election.  Spending the kind of money that his campaign is spending for attack ads isn’t very conservative. So why claim that he is a conservative? Because they know that a conservative is what the majority want.

What are conservatives doing? We’re screwing it up! We wanted Palin because she shared our values, she wasn’t establishment and she had the numbers to win.  She encouraged Organize4Palin to organize on her behalf, she would speak of her plan and say such things as “we candidates”, but then the dreadful day came that she announced she wasn’t running. All that hard work went down the drain and sent her supporters in a tizzy.

The Newt campaign seized the opportunity by contacting every state leader at Orgainize4Palin, ultimately the things that happened destroyed the very large organization. Palin supporters were split into 2 groups, those that couldn’t accept her decision and those that did.  Emotions were high and long time friendships ended, bonds broken. Why is this relevant to this election? It’s relevant because United We Stand, Divided We Fall. The very large Palin voting block was divided and we fell.

The Earthquake movement began, those faithful Palin supporters who wouldn’t and couldn’t accept that she said no. With heartfelt emotions and good intentions they hoped, prayed and worked to change her mind. To this day they fight for her to become President, even risking going to the convention in hopes that she will get in there. Failing to accept her own words, failing to accept that if the process lasts until we go to the convention that the establishment will make sure their chosen candidate is the nominee. Romney will be chosen by default. Will common sense prevail?

Common sense isn’t so common in politics, not by the politicians and clearly not by those that follow them. On rare occasions you get to see those rare people who simply don’t fall into the emotional pitfall and look at things logically. Youth For Palin did that, instead of leaping on a bandwagon as many others did, they vetted all the candidates. Their vetting process was done out in the open for all to see.  On my own I did the same, I avoided Palin groups because I saw the ugliness that was happening on the majority of them. The in fighting, former friends calling each other trolls. A once strong movement falling apart.
Soon people were choosing other candidates, though the Palin loyalist would not give up on their hope that she would somehow magically become President. Some moved to Bachmann, Cain and Perry quickly, but then switched when their chosen candidate dropped out. Sadly, there are some supporters that are on their  3rd or even 4th choice of a candidate.  People wanted a hero, in some ways I think that became an unrealistic fantasy, nobody can truly live up to the expectations. Perfection doesn’t exist, it never has. Even George Washington wasn’t perfect and I’m sure if we lived in his time we would criticize him for one thing or another as we do the candidates today.  We’ve deluded ourselves into creating heroes in some that don’t deserve the honor or knit picking at another because he didn’t come riding up on a white horse to save the day and he’s just not perfect.

This campaign has been uglier than it ever had to be, all we had to do was vet the candidates with a clear sound mind and promote them. We didn’t need the disgusting attacks on levels, we didn’t need the blind Obot like worship. We’ve shown ourselves to be no better than the liberals. And now we have this conservative split that may destroy our country.  I’m disgusted by conservatives, I’m disgusted by people I used to respect who seem to think it is acceptable to dish dirt and attack the supporters of another candidate. If you have the “anything goes to win” mentality then I am ashamed to have ever worked with you.  It’s one thing for politicians to behave that way, it’s quite another for us to wallow in the mud with them.

 How can we save this election? For one we can stop bashing each other and each others candidates with ridiculous accusations. We can accept that our own candidates are flawed, we can put our emotions aside and look at logistics. Because make no mistake if this nonsense doesn’t stop then Romney, who none of us want will be the nominee. And the reason I fear that the most is that if that happens the chances for Obama being re-elected increases. Romney will not be able to buy the general election, all his money isn’t a match for the money of the Obama machine. We need more than money to beat him, we need a candidate who is completely the opposite of Obama.

Some think that is Newt, but instead of campaigning for him all they are doing is bashing Santorum and his supporters. That’s not going to help Newt win the nomination, that will in fact help Romney because Santorum is the front runner with Romney. Take him out and Romney wins.  If Newt had the support to beat Romney, he would be the front-runner. Some say that he would be the best to beat Obama, when clearly facts don’t support that. If it were true, he would be in contention to beat Romney.  The smartest guy in the room had a chance and he surged twice, but couldn’t maintain the support. Instead of bashing anybody please look and find out why that is, because frankly it’s not just because of the attacks.

The attacks worked on Cain, they were to much for him and he dropped out. Newt has been attacked by the Romney machine and managed to come back twice, only to fall again. Why is that? It’s not just because he was attacked. Santorum is proving that. Santorum has been attacked by the Romney, Paul and Newt camps and he still hasn’t lost the support that others lost. He has dropped a point here and there and then risen back up.  Why? Not because he is perfect, no Santorum isn’t perfect, but he obviously has something that other candidates haven’t had and obviously has less baggage than the others.

Respected conservative names have given Santorum support. Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have all voiced their support of his candidacy and of his conservatism. Sarah Palin has spoken well of him. Though it is true that she has in some cases pushed Newt, but she hasn’t endorsed Newt. She has refuses to make an endorsement.  If Santorum is this bad guy that the opposition is trying to make him out to be, why would these respected conservatives speak so highly of him? Why would Michelle Malkin who is known for digging into the truth endorse him?

So you want Ron Paul who can’t win or Newt Gingrich who could have won, but ultimately couldn’t hold the level of support to do just that. Well, you can’t always get what you want. I wanted Sarah Palin to run, but you don’t always get what you want. Santorum is our last best chance to beat Romney and then Obama. That is just the logical fact based on the numbers and not my emotional will. It’s reality!

Editor's Note:this is a guest post,the thoughts&ideas expressed may or may not represent Little Bytes News or my opinion,but I wanted to offer Donna a place to share her views during this election season.

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 12:46 AM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: 2012, election, Gingrich, politics, President Obama, rick santorum, Romney

I guess these 'ethicists' don't understand how bad abortion is to know that infanticide is unacceptable and unethical.  Legal does not mean moral, remember everything Hitler and the Nazi's did was legal too. The mindset of many prochoice advocates is the same as the argument used by these ethicists. They think because a fetus isn't sentient, or an actual person it is morally acceptable to kill them.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

These are the same reasons that many abortion advocates say they should have the legal right to abort a human being before birth. Now you have these 'experts' claiming newborns can be killed because of the same reasons. How soon before it becomes any disabled, elderly person or person who becomes permanently brain damaged or in a vegetative state? Or when will they move the age up to determine who is and isn't a full human person? The article goes on to say:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The editor of the Journal, Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are the authors of the article. The editor defended publishing the article by saying:
those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

Where the editor gets the idea that infanticide,after-birth abortions, are widely accepted is beyond me. However, if that is true I guess it wouldn't surprise me since we live in a culture of death that allows the killing of innocent human beings before they are born. Abortion is morally wrong at any stage. Killing an innocent human being after birth is always wrong and even more gruesome.  Neither should be considered morally acceptable. 

Once you start giving rights to end innocent human lives you are no better than a barbaric society and eventually will allow the killing of the disabled,mentally ill and elderly.  This would be similar to what the Nazi's wanted in order to create a pure race or the eugenics and population control beliefs of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

The authors argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Source:Telegraph

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 7:48 AM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: abortion, abortionists, Health care, Health care reform, pregnancy, pro-life, prochoice, prolife

Lately Rick Santorum has come under criticism for being 'too conservative' or too 'fringe' on social issues and out of the mainstream. It wasn't that long ago our country was less secular and was more open to social issues, like abortion. Although Roe V Wade was decided in 1973, this country has been divided and outspoken on this issue since. The atrocity of the killing of unborn children in their mothers womb has since left over 55 million dead and many mothers wounded emotionally, some physically and some have died, even though legalizing abortion was suppose to make them safe, legal and rare.










Therefore, if you care about this country and want to see our country outspoken and demanding equal protection under the law for ALL life,liberty and happiness, we must speak out on social issues and we must defend and protect our Constitution in order to change the hearts and minds of American's. If we don't do this or at least attempt to, we ignore our Constitution and the humanity of millions of unborn children who are never given a chance to pursue happiness. The gift of life is not granted by laws or governments,it is an unalienable right we are given by our Creator, simply for being humans, of the species homo sapiens.

While Rick Santorum has spoken out recently on his religious convictions he is also defending our unalienable rights and those rights which our Constitution ought to protect, such as our conscience rights&religious rights. The right to conscience and our morals is one of those rights and that right is currently under attack by the policies of the current administration. We must stand up for those rights because whether we believe in a religion or not, our religious freedoms as granted in the First Amendment grants us the right to practice our beliefs, to protect those morals and conscience rights we inherently have.


You can be an atheist, a pagan or some other religion, but the freedom to express and practice your choice is one the government does not grant but must protect, as long as no harm is done to another. This is why the Catholic Church and other denominations have recently spoken out against the health care mandate that would require religious institutions and organizations, along with religious employers to provide health insurance which offers free contraception, abortifacients and sterlization.

The conscience and religious rights of these organizations and individuals are going to be violated if this mandate is not overturned. Nobody is being denied access to these items, but the government can't force anyone to pay for these services for someone else. I am confident the Supreme Court will overturn the entire Affordable Health Care Act, which was forced upon us in the late hours of 2009. However, this decision might be delayed until 2015,rather than next month, if the latest news coming out of the Supreme Court occurs. The bottom line is that the government has no right to force any of its citizens, private businesses or insurance companies&religious organizations to purchase a product or service, such as health insurance, contraception or sterilization.

Finally, there is nowhere in the Constitution that says the government must provide it nor is there anywhere that says anyone must pay for someone else's health care, contraception, sterilization or abortifacients.

America is a Constitutional Republic founded on individual liberty;not a collective ideology like Obama believes we must follow by redistributing our wealth and paying for others entitlements. Entitlements are not human rights and they are not Constitutional rights;they are a luxury that the government can take away just as easy as they can provide them. As the saying goes, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 11:23 AM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: 2012, abortion, Health care, Health care reform, President Obama, prochoice, prolife, rick santorum

Source:Army - Stripes

What is becoming of our military?? Now this is getting a bit ridiculous...of course this comes following the new push to have women serve in ground combat troops, so it's no surprise, they want males wearing fake breasts and empathy bellies;next thing the Obama administrations military commanders will want are pregnant women in combat?? I guess to liberals it could be seen as another form of abortion if they are killed in combat??

In addition to these ridiculous changes to our military, Obama is cutting combat pay,wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal below Russia and China and he has already repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell' which gives homosexuals the right to serve openly in the military. Why we needed this law repealed is unknown, but the military is turning into a mockery and social experiment under this administration. And then there is this news out that Secretary Napolitano Disrespects And Disarms Pilots. In the meantime our world is growing more dangerous and unstable.

Cross posted at Politijim.com
Follow me on twitter @littlebytesnews for latest news on politics to parenting and everything in between.  ©2008-2012 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 8:31 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Yesterday a North Carolina pre-schooler's story made headlines when it was reported that an inspector replaced her home-made lunch with a school lunch considered more healthy.

UPDATE: This story has been updated with a newer version including statements from USDA officials. Click here to read the updated report.

—————————-
RAEFORD, N.C. — A Hoke County preschooler was fed chicken nuggets for lunch because a state worker felt that her homemade lunch did not have enough nutritional value, according to a report by the Carolina Journal.

The West Hoke Elementary School student was in her More at Four classroom when a state employee who was inspecting lunch boxes decided that her packed lunch — which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips — “did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines,” the Journal reports.

Today I came across a similar story, which says USDA workers are going into schools and not only inspecting the food quality but tasting it? How much is this new program costing the taxpayers to bring in chefs to improve school lunches? While I am grateful my kids lunch is well prepared&healthy do we really need federal inspectors coming in to scrutinize them, and replace a home-made lunch if they think it is not nutritious enough? Most of these lunches will go to waste either way, as the little girl only ended up eating three nuggets and still didn't eat the home-made lunch or the rest of the school lunch.

Audrey Rowe is visiting schools all over the nation. “Everything we can do.. to make food taste good,” Rowe told students at Elkhorn Middle School in Frankfort on Wednesday.

The USDA official from Washington, DC got a first-hand look…and taste of school lunches in Kentucky.

“I think we can make it to where one day you’ll say ‘that lady was here and I like this food now.’That’s what I’m working on,” she said.

Taylor Boggs ate lunch with Rowe, who’s worked directly with President Obama on school lunch legislation.

“She really listened to what I said about the food,” said Boggs, an 8th grader at Elkhorn .

“Usually for students, if they don’t have a good lunch, sometime around mid-afternoon, they get sluggish, start having issues,” said Rowe, who says she visited the school in-between several meetings with officials in Kentucky.

Rowe says the bottom line is that school lunches today are going to be a lot different next year.

8th graders say their meals are pretty good, but some days…. “It’s really greasy…and not fresh,” said Boggs.

Rowe says some districts have brought in chefs in to make changes.

“A few weeks ago Rachel Ray made lunch in one of the schools I was in, she made turkey tacos,” she said.

Elkhorn Middle School was given the thumbs up for already serving fat free milk and whole grain buns.

“I’m really pleased with what I see here in Kentucky. Other school districts are not as far along,” Rowe said.

Rowe says the new laws will not just change what is served in cafeterias, but what is allowed in vending machines and other areas of the school.

Source:WKYT

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 8:39 AM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: Children and Youth, family, Kids and Teens, parental rights, parents, politics