|
Vote to protect the lives of the unborn
From: Dan and Monica Mahon, Winsted
It came to light lately how good Christian people can continue to vote for pro-abortion candidates. These voters are deluded to see legal abortion on the same level as capital punishment, war, or even tax cuts to the “rich.”
Candidates who call themselves pro-choice are wanting women and doctors to have the choice to kill unborn babies. Make no mistake – there is no choice for the innocent life, or maybe the father, or even the mother, herself, who is pressured and not knowing or understanding the consequences of her decision.
The purpose of government is the protection of human life, especially the lives of the most helpless – for without life, all other rights are meaningless.
Capital punishment and war, in themselves, are not intrinsically evil. In other words, at times (rarely), they could be used as a good for society.
Abortion is intrinsically evil. It is the deliberate extinguishing of a helpless human life, stopping a beating heart.
Since Jan. 22, 1973, we, as a nation, have killed 45 million unborn babies. A film made using an ultrasound during an abortion, shows a definite “silent scream” of one of these little ones. Yet, each of these precious babies have felt the pain and terror of being ripped from their mother’s womb.
Abortionists causing this terror to the unborn can be rightfully called “terrorists.” So, who in their right mind would vote for a candidate promoting the “choice” of terrorists, even though one agreed with the candidate on other issues?
It is absurd to think that pro-choice terrorists would support programs which get at the causes of abortion and seek to drastically reduce their number, as some may say. No, the candidates’ pro-choice stance on terrorism (abortion) should make that person disqualified for holding any public office. If one is not seeing clearly on this core principal, how could this candidate be trusted on any number of other issues?
Our vote in a free society brings grave responsibility. Elected pro-life representatives on all levels can vote and speak on issues or bills before them. Bills dealing with a gamut of ethical issues hinge on when human life begins, or ends; such as human cloning (now covered by Minnesota taxpayers at the University of Minnesota), euthanasia, the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, partial birth abortion, or not giving care to aborted babies born alive; let alone all the other moral family life issues of the day never dreamed to be voted on, condoned, or paid for by taxpayers before the 1973 abortion decision by the Supreme Court.
The president, upon death or resignation of a Supreme Court justice, has the ability to put judges in nomination. If confirmed, they may serve for life on the court. Because of poor health, two pro-abortion justices may need to be replaced by our next president.
If these justices are replaced with judges who recognize the “personhood” of the unborn, Roe vs. Wade would be only one of many decisions to be overturned, saving most of the one-and-one-half million unborn babies being killed each year throughout our nation. This is possible even without a human life amendment.
Also by executive order, pro-life presidents have restricted payment of military abortions. Pro-abortion presidents have had the taxpayers pay for these abortions. With this in mind, one can see our votes are needed to speak for those who cannot.
It is not a time for self-interest. It’s the law that imposed abortion on demand; we, therefore, have to elect lawmakers who stand for life. If we, as Christians, accept the fact that abortion is legal in this country and will probably remain so, then, we are part of the problem.
What if this were said of slavery? The Supreme Court ruled slavery wrong in the 1800s, and it is wrong now; but enough people cared for black people to have their personhood recognized and restored. This is exactly what is needed today for the unborn.
Money or help given to worthy pro-life causes will not be enough to soothe the “wrestling” Christian conscience, in one’s voting to keep legal the killing of the unborn by electing pro-terrorist (abortion) candidates.
May God have mercy on our country and help us to see the importance of His little ones.
Abortion issue supersedes all other issues
From: Mike Culhane, Howard Lake
Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Senate candidate Al Franken support all abortions. Obama has even voted for support of live birth abortions (Gonzales v. Carhart bill).
Obama considers unwanted pregnancy a punishment. He said, “If they (his two daughters) made a mistake, I would not want to punish them with a baby.”
If it’s a life at eight months, why not at one month?
Life is created at conception: that’s a fact. Abortion takes a life from conception to eternity.
The pain that abortion has created for the unborn children, their parents, and society is immeasurable. Planned Parenthood has made it mandatory for induction of pain killers – acknowledgement that the baby feels pain. Psychological counseling is recommended after an abortion for the parents. That is a fact.
Our self-centered society must wake up, or we will eliminate our future.
All of God’s graces cannot save us; unless we try to save ourselves.
The abortion issue supersedes all other issues. The catechism of the Catholic church considers abortion a non-negotiable issue.
All citizens should vote their religious convictions. Pro-life . . .life, liberty and justice . . . it is part of our forefathers convictions: it’s in our Constitution. How many more lives are we going to take, before we see the facts of life?
Election of any pro-choice candidate will only add to the financial gains of Planned Parenthood, paid for by all citizens. The Democratic-controlled congress is already planning major bills to increase government funding for this atrocity.
Make no mistake, this election will have grave consequences on the future of our society and its moral values.
How would Jesus vote? How should we vote?
Pro-life above all other issues.
Solutions
From Brady Ernst, Dassel (formerly Lester Prairie)
Last week I was kind of called on the carpet by a writer from Waconia. She made some very good points, and I completely agree with people taking responsibility for their own actions.
I also feel that unless we address the larger problems we face, our government will continue to circumvent the system that was put in place to check them.
So, I wanted to give the simple solutions she asked for to fix the problems I have listed in past letters.
The education issue, I’ve mentioned many times, needs to fixed. First, great teachers need a great salary. Second, poor teachers need to be asked to move on to another career. A merit-based pay would be the quickest and most efficient fix.
Most of the teachers’ unions will not allow only certain teachers to receive a raise – it has to be across the board. So, for this to work an agreement needs to be reached with the unions to push excellence in education and teachers’ wages, instead of just in teachers’ wages.
This tactic has been attempted at various schools, to overwhelming success.
Our standing in the world and our economy will take a few more steps, but they would be just as simple.
First, our troops we have stationed all over the world, and defending the rest of the world, need to be brought home. We spend almost as much as the entire rest of the world on defense. Our bases should be gutted of supplies and brought home.
This would allow our defense spending to be cut over time, and allow us to use our resources for our protection, not Europe’s and Asia’s.
Secondly, we need to stop intervening in all of the world’s problems.
It was never our founding fathers’ intentions to be the world’s police. It also creates animosity toward us from other countries, which is why we are hated as much as we were feared half a century ago.
Our alliances require us to go to war for countries whom have no effect on our way of life. These alliances should never be permanent, they should be made within a timeline that is best for America first and foremost.
Third, our currency needs to be directly tied to gold as it was up until the 1970s. It would stabilize our economy and the world’s oil prices.
If the world ever decides to end basing the price of oil off of the dollar, the dollar’s value will crash – sending us almost certainly into a recession.
If it were tied to the value of gold, this would not be an issue.
One of the things to reign in our elected vultures at both the state and federal level would be to inundate them with phone calls to bar lobbyists from the capitols.
Right now, we have lobbyists that are affecting our country’s course from foreign countries and foreign corporations. Hugo Chavez, Toyota, and Airbus all have hired lobbying firms to represent their interests. These lobbyists are up for sale to the highest bidder, no matter who the bidder is.
Eliminating the lobbyists would make our politicians answer to us – not lobbyists.
Our massive loss of jobs over the last 10 years to other countries would be ended by taking a protectionist tone – something our country embraced up until the 1960s.
Each country that imports to our country should have a wage-equalizing tariff put on them. It would put our workers on level playing ground with foreign workers.
The revenue raised from tariffs could offset corporate taxes, which would allow for more economic expansion within our borders.
In fact, the revenue earned from tariffs was once enough to fund our entire government. It should be again.
We have every commodity the world can offer right within our borders. We also have the most skilled and most efficient work force in all the world.
Every country that trades in our markets depends on our markets to feed their economy. If a country were to throw up a trade barrier and start a trade war with us, the losses they would take from losing our market would far exceed our losses.
A tariff saved Harley Davidson in the 1980s, it would save Detroit today.
This may cause losses for some, if not all, of the multi-national companies, but in the long run we would still be capable of producing the guns and ships needed to defend our great nation. It would also put our footing back securely in the manufacturing sector, instead of the service sector.
And, man will buy where it is easiest, not cheapest.
The last fix would be securing our borders. Something that will be much easier when we are not securing the borders of the rest of the world.
First step would be to implement a three-strike rule on businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The last strike resulting in the revocation of their business license.
Second all entitlements going to illegals, outside of emergency care, should be halted immediately.
Third, the federal government needs to withhold funding from states and cities that operate as sanctuaries.
These three steps alone – coupled with a limit on legal immigration, something we had up until the mid-1960s – would end the border debate.
One other issue that the writer brought up was of statistics used on commentary pages. She very specifically brought up the fact that I said that whites are 100 times more likely to be raped by a black perpetrator than if the roles are reversed.
I wanted to directly address this, so I have listed the link to the site at the end of this article. The stat I used was from 2005, they have recently added stats for 2006.
The actual stat is as follows: whites that are raped are raped by blacks 33.6 percent of the time. The reverse is 0.0 percent, so as you can see the difference is far more than 100 times.
The 2006 statistic is 16.7 percent and 0.0 percent.
The reason I used 100 times was, I didn’t want to seem to be sensationalizing the number.
My point on this wasn’t to create “fear” or induce racism, it was to demonstrate media bias to further their own message.
What I am asking – while I do appreciate the questioning of what I said – is I would appreciate more research in the questioning before accusing myself or this fine paper of wrong doing.
The web site is http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm.
Angvall has the caliber to represent Dist. 18A
From: Raymond Carlson
Professor of psychology and vice president for development, retired, Bemidji State University
It is a particular pleasure for me to have this opportunity to endorse Eric Angvall for state representative for District 18A. Without question, he is a candidate whose qualifications no one could reasonably excel.
I first knew Eric Angvall when he was a student at Bemidji State University in the late 1960s. At that time, as a college sophomore, he initiated and operated one of the state’s first recycling programs in Bemidji. With no models to guide him, he developed a highly successful community-wide recycling center.
This effort entailed such activities as finding and equipping a location, arranging transportation and markets for the paper, glass, and metals, promoting the program with public speaking and advertising, and soliciting volunteer help to support the program. All was accomplished with no public or private funding. The sale of materials provided the modest, but sufficient financial support, and Angvall donated his contribution to the enterprise.
During this time, Angvall also served as president of a university service organization of former Boy Scouts, dedicated to community and college service. The activities of this organization ranged from planting seedling trees for the DNR to visiting people in the local nursing home. He also was president of the college science club. And, oh yes, he graduated on schedule with a degree in biology/earth science.
Since his life in Bemidji, Angvall has served as mayor of Lester Prairie for 14 years and initiated both city- and county-wide recycling programs, for which Governor Perpich declared a statewide “Eric Angvall Day.”
I could also dwell on his very supportive wife and family. His family has hosted several foreign exchange students in their home.
I could continue with other endorsements, but I believe the foregoing sampling should convince anyone that they are indeed fortunate to have an opportunity to vote for a person of Eric Angvall’s caliber as their state representative.
Eric Angvall – ‘I am a fiscal conservative’
From: Eric Angvall, Lester Prairie
I appreciate the previous letter writer’s comments, and welcome an open dialogue on the subject as to who should represent us at the state.
You may find it interesting that I am seeking the state representative’s position. I find it encouraging that someone is willing to seek the office and try to represent the people of the district and not just vote party line.
Some may believe that global warming is a “great hoax,” but they are a small minority of people who do not accept documented temperature change. The actual question is not is the world warming, but, why and how is it warming. It is normal for the earth to experience temperature variations; however, it is not normal for it to occur at the speed that is now documented.
If people are asked the question, “do you believe ‘free’ health care is a good idea?,” you will find an overwhelming majority saying yes! However, if the question is asked, “are you willing to pay for ‘free’ health care?,” the positive answers change dramatically. How the question is asked makes a big difference in the answer.
We do, in fact, have a problem with health care cost – both the conservatives and liberals agree on this. I do not think that just saying no is a way to address this problem, but if elected, I would actually get input from the people that I would represent and not just accept the dictates of the party in St Paul. I believe that being a representative is actually that – trying to represent the wishes and needs of the people that I hope to represent.
In viewing the requested increase that the Lester Prairie park board is suggesting, keep in mind that this is a group request, and not just that of one member. I am just one member of the board, and the requested dollars are, in part, the result of a proposed new park that the current council is considering.
The new proposed park has a projected cost of $100,000 and this will impact the local taxpayer. It will be the council’s decision, not the park board’s. It is a stretch of the truth to say that it is I, alone, who is suggesting a large increase. Again, the increase reflects, in part, the current desire of the council to proceed with a new park that has been suggested by a small group of Lester Prairie citizens.
I appreciate your interest in another city’s political process. Here is one point in which I differ from your apparent approach to things.
As mayor, it was my job to chair the meetings of the council and not to attempt to take control. The good workings of government is to allow for citizens to participate, to become active in it. This does slow the process down, but it allows for a very positive involvement.
I believe that it is important to allow the whole council to make decisions, and not just one member – this is what democracy is. As a matter of record for you, I voted against the current city budget last year, believing that the increase was too big. However, the council did pass the budget. This meets your definition of conservative, and I would welcome your vote Tuesday, Nov 4.
It needs also to be noted that I was labeled a “liberal” by yourself. If liberal means that I would like the state to invest in alternate energy systems, such as wind power, to create and encourage jobs in Minnesota, and not to export our dollars overseas, then I consider this a compliment.
If liberal means that I am willing to listen to the people that I wish to represent, and consider investing in our educational systems, then I consider this a compliment.
If liberal means that I am wanting to assure the people that I hope to represent that our roads and bridges will be maintained, then I consider this a compliment.
If liberal means that I will reexamine the state budget to see what areas could, or should be, trimmed, then I consider this a compliment.
If liberal means that I am not going to vote no on everything, but actually get local inputs for decisions, then I consider this a compliment.
If liberal means that I am willing to try to return more control of our schools and cities to the local elected officials, then I consider this a compliment.
I prefer that one gets to know the candidate and not to assume that one label fits all. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, a very Republican concept.
|
