The Catholic Monitor

Many long time pro-lifers such as Dale Alquist of EWTN, Lesfemmes and I have our problems with Mitt’s speaking with fork tongue . For example on Aug 28 Jed LewisonFollow for Daily Kos wrote: That's not true—Romney was against all abortion until last Monday, when he decided to support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life was in danger. But he didn't support abortion in cases "merely" involving health—that exception was entirely new. Never fear, though, Greg Sargent reports Romneyland has already walked that back. But there is no shift, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul tells me. She emails: “Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.” That means no health exception. I wrote to Steven Ertelt of LifeNews: “ It appears to me that many pro-lifer are saying Obama is really bad so vote for Romney because he is a bit better and will defeat our ...

If Romney is for Abortion on Demand, Why Vote for Him? I said I will not vote for Mitt. But, Obama is so in your face about making the USA an abortion/anti-family state that I’m having second thoughts. Is it better to have the enemy in front of you? Will Romney's create a liberal paradigm shift in the Republican Party not just for homosexual “special rights”, but also for abortion on demand that will never be reversed in that Party. Lesfemmes wrote: Did you hear what [Romney] said? Abortion for rape and incest and "health and life of the mother." That is Roe v. Wade and it equals abortion on demand. In Doe v. Bolton, the companion decision, the court defined the woman's "health" to include physical health, mental health, the woman's family situation, and her age. To sum up, it was abortion in the first three months for no reason; abortion in the last six for any reason. Unborn babies are just so much trash to both presidential candidates. ...

No Charismatic Tongues in First Centuries of  Church Except with Heretics   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia Glossolalia or speaking in tongues is the fluid vocalizing (or less commonly, the writing) of speech-like syllables which lack any readily comprehended meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice.[1] The significance of glossolalia has varied in context, with some minorities considering it as a part of a sacred language. It is most prominently practiced within Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, but it is also practiced in non-Christian religions. Glossolalia also sometimes refers to xenoglossy, which is speaking in a natural language that was previously unknown to the speaker. Contents [hide] 1 Etymology 2 Linguistics 3 Glossolalia in Christianity 3.1 Theological explanations 3.2 Biblical practice 3.3 Church practice 3.3.1 A.D. 100 to 400 3.3.2 A.D. 400 to 1900 3.3.3 20th century to present 4 Non-Christian ...

by Amy Contrada December 9, 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------Summary: Mitt Romney’s record as Governor does not indicate a commitment to a conservative judicial philosophy.--------------------------------------------- His judge appointees revealed at best “no philosophical or partisan pattern” (Boston Globe), or at worst a liberal and even radical tilt. He sought out feminists and radical homosexual groups in his judicial selection process. He was inconsistent in his pronouncements on judicial activism, allowing it to occur under his watch (with “gay marriage”) while simultaneously urging others to fight it. How then could we expect him to keep his recent promises to appoint constitutional conservatives to the bench if he is elected President? -------------------------------------------------------------- What sort of attorneys would he name to his Justice Department? As Governor, his Chief Legal Counsels advised him to implement unconstitutional polici...