Super Tuesday States

Super Tuesday States: Ron Paul wants to hear from you! Vote for him, vote for integrity, vote for a man who won’t have to spend time defending his record when facing Obama this fall! Vote for the man who hasn’t paid lip service to those of us working hard to end abortion! Vote for the man who wants to protect the Constitution!

 

From Ron Paul:

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum ALL:

*** Supported massive new government intrusion into your health care through the individual mandate and Medicare Part D, the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years before ObamaCare;

*** Joined union bosses in opposing a National Right to Work law, or, in the case of Gingrich, refused to lift a finger to help pass the bill when Speaker. Even more disturbingly, Rick Santorum joined Ted Kennedy in TWICE voting for a massive expansion of union power that could have broken the backs of hundreds of thousands of small businesses;
…
*** Supported the doubling in size of the federal Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind federal power grab;
And Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich went even further, not only supporting the bank and housing bailouts but personally enriching themselves by them.

The sad truth is, none of these three candidates can give us change.

In fact, they can’t even help us defeat Barack Obama this fall.

If we’re going to defeat Obama, our Republican candidate for President must show a CLEAR, TRUE contrast with Barack Obama.

I’m afraid Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum simply won’t be able to do that.

We can’t defeat Obama without making an issue of ObamaCare, bailouts, and massive federal power grabs.

Polls continue to show that I’m the candidate to take on and defeat Barack Obama this fall.

Can you imagine the clear choice my campaign would give voters?

You see, I’m the only candidate with a real plan to cut spending and balance our budget.

My Plan to Restore America cuts $1 trillion in federal spending during the first year of my presidency by eliminating five unconstitutional departments, and it balances our nation’s budget by the third year.

And I’m the only candidate in this race with a lifetime record of standing up for constitutional government.

Because of my strong defense of the right to keep and bear arms, I’ve received the prestigious “Defender of the Second Amendment” Award from Gun Owners of America.

And since I believe that liberty cannot be protected if life is not respected, I’ve fought hard to defend the unborn

I’ve introduced legislation to federally recognize that life begins at conception, repeal Roe v. Wade, and strip federal judges of any jurisdiction over the abortion issue.

And when it comes to our borders, I’m the only candidate talking about securing OUR borders – instead of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I’ve opposed every single bailout, and I have NEVER once voted for a tax increase.

I’m known as the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.

If you want a real constitutional conservative with a 30-year track record of standing up to the Big Government, big spending status quo in Washington, then, if you live in a state voting tomorrow, I ask for your support.

Together, you and I can Restore America NOW!

For Liberty,
Ron Paul.

Filed under: American Liberties

Shrimp and Rice

Meatless Lents are great for learning new things in the kitchen and stepping out of my comfort zone I have found! Today I really wanted to make rice and beans, but I couldn’t find a recipe that I had all the ingredients for, so I read a few recipes then put an idea together and this is what I came up with:

 

1/2 onion – diced

3 cups cooked brown rice**

1 can diced tomatoes

1 can green peas

1 12 oz package of cooked shrimp

salt

pepper

oregano

cayenne pepper (optional)

oil (to coat the bottom of the pan)
1. In a dutch oven or a large pot, heat oil over medium heat then place onions in pan. Let the onions cook until translucent then add the rice.

2. Stir together until rice is heated then add the peas and tomatoes. Stir to combine then add the rest of the ingredients, stirring to combine.

3. Let the mixture cook over low heat for about 1/2 hour, until flavors combine.

Serve with cornbread. Top with jalapenos, if desired.

 

**I am lazy and scared when it comes to rice, I have burned it more times that I care to mention, so when I make rice, I do it in the oven. Place the rice and water (usual ratios) in an oven proof cookware (I used Corningware), put a lid on it and bake for about an hour. Keep an eye on it to make sure there is enough water. I usually use brown rice, and it has a longer cooking time, so if you are using white rice, the times may be less.

 

 

Filed under: Food

Ron Paul On Marriage

Seeing that misinformation regarding Dr. Paul’s position on marriage is being passed around on the interwebs, I respectfully ask you to read these speeches and interview from Dr. Paul.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html?start=2

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Filed under: American Liberties

For Every Food Post

I post two political posts:

 

LifeSiteNews interviews Ron Paul: protect family, marriage, life by protecting subsidiarity

 

WASHINGTON, January 19, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When it comes to the voting booth, pro-life and pro-family voters are among the most passionately dedicated to their issues. Their zeal may be challenged by only one other group: Ron Paul enthusiasts.

Although mainstream politics may look at both groups askance, the relationship between the two themselves is not so clear. At the center of the question, of course, is Ron Paul himself: is the Paul philosophy compatible with the voter who puts life and family first?

In a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday, the Texas Congressman proposed his vision on government as an alternative strategy in securing the future of America: casting limited government as not just a libertarian quirk, but a key to protecting religious rights in battles yet to be seen.

Abortion

Despite a considerable pro-life pedigree, Paul, whom polls still show in serious contention as the conservative Romney alternative, is anything but synonymous with the national pro-life movement. In large part, he says this is because of his record in Congress: he has voted against several federal abortion regulations as unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution.

So why should those who vote pro-life first, vote for “Dr. No”? Paul suggested the answer requires a broad-angle lens on the state of affairs, including the struggle in higher echelons for control over America’s soul. When it comes to choosing the next U.S. president, he says, conservative Christians, including pro-lifers and homeschooling families, should be looking for someone willing to turn against the tide of greater centralized power.

“They [progressives] would like to excommunicate us, so to speak, from the social system, because we have Christian values,” said Paul. “Once you give the government this power to make these decisions, then we’re in trouble – even though some people might think, oh, well, we’re in charge, and we’re going to make the right decisions, and we’ll always tell [citizens] the good things they should do. I don’t think it’s possible.”

Paul doesn’t eschew all federal involvement on the question, and favors going right to the top: he says he hopes to build towards a constitutional amendment banning abortion, while pursuing a constitutional method to help the culture of life turn itself around on the state level. This includes federal personhood legislation, which he has personally introduced into U.S. Congress, as well as measures to take the power away from federal courts to mandate a “right” to abortion. History shows that this method locks in to the real dynamics of the abortion issue – which has always been mainly spiritual, rather than legal, he said.

“The real problem started in the 60s when there was a change in the morality of our people, who started defying the law and doing abortions, and respect for life dropped off,” he said. “The law was changed to conform to the lack of moral standing in this country. So that’s where the real problem is.”

Marriage

But Paul’s emphasis on Constitutional fidelity has also run the Texas Congressman into trouble with marriage defenders, such as the National Organization for Marriage, who have heavily criticized his opposition to federal moves to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, said Paul, it becomes a question of state versus federal power. He emphasized that, speaking “as a presidential candidate,” his words against government power are largely directed at the federal level.

When asked if he would veto a same-sex marriage bill as a state governor, he said yes, “if they were going to call that marriage.”

“For state purposes, I’ve defended the right of the state to be able to set the standards,” said Paul. If we let the federal government mandate a marriage definition, he warned, nothing would necessarily keep it the right one.

“If the federal government gets involved, they are going to write a definition. They might not want a dictionary definition or a Christian definition of marriage,” he said. “That’s why I fear the federal government getting in, because they will put pressure on all the states to follow their definition.”

Paul added that he would like marriage to take place “personally and through the church,” which he said was not without historical precedent, and said that issues like spousal benefits and custody battles can be properly handled on a community level.

In short, he says, “the people closest to the situation should have the most to say about it.”

Homeschooling

When it comes to homeschooling rights, Paul’s radical views come into even sharper relief: the Congressman says his bill to remove federal jurisdiction would remove power of federal courts to bully homeschoolers as well. Paul foresees that homeschooling might one day be as threatened in America as in Germany or Sweden, where parents have lost children to state custody because they homeschooled.

“If you want homeschooling to become a national issue, we’re going to lose,” said Paul. “What we want to do is get the federal government out, and make sure states protect us in having homeschooling.”

He spoke in similar terms regarding one of the biggest conservative hangups over the candidate: loosening regulations on drugs and prostitution. While states have the right to restrict or ban such things, he said, choosing not to regulate certain activities through government does not constitute endorsement.

“If we embark on this idea that the government can sort all this out, we’re in big trouble, because that’s what [progressives] are trying to do right now,” he said.

“The states have a lot of leeway in what they want to do,” he concluded, “but I look at the Constitution as only allowing us to explicitly what we’ve been given the power to do.”

Filed under: American Liberties, General Stuff

Quinoa and Bean Burgers (meatless!)

Last Friday I attempted to make bean burgers but did not have all the ingredients to do so (mainly a lack of bread crumbs) but didn’t realize it until I had already started putting things together. I was also going to make a recipe using quinoa but in the end decided to mix the two. Joshua was helping in the kitchen and this is what we came up with:

 

Quinoa and Bean Burgers

1 can kidney beans

1 can white kidney beans (or navy beans)

2 eggs

2 cups cooked quinoa

1/2 medium onion, diced

4 oz shredded cheese

1/3 cup flour (or enough to help hold the mixture together)

to taste:

garlic powder

onion powder

salt

pepper

cumin (optional)

 

Mix all the ingredients together in a large bowl and set aside.

Pour  about 1/4 inch of oil into a pan and heat to 350. (I used my new bff, my electric skillet)

Form into patties, about 3″ wide and 1/2″ thick and place in hot oil until brown on each side.

Top with extra shredded cheese.

 

We served them on buns topped with cheese, tomatoes, mayo, and jalapeno chips, but they would be great served without the bun.

This recipe made 24(ish) burgers, enough for three meals for our little family, I am sure it can be halved.

Enjoy!

Filed under: Food

Wherein I defend Santorum

Yeah, it had to happen. I don’t actually hate the man and I think he might be an interesting person to sit and talk with…maybe.  I do think when he is attacked for defending teachings of the Catholic Church that people have crossed the line. Attacking his speech at Ave Maria is a perfect example of this. I wanted to write  a post about that, but found this post, which is pretty much what I wanted to say, without me having to find a dark/quiet corner for three hours.

 

Santorum, the media, and the religious test

By Phil Lawler | February 22, 2012 6:06 PM

Of course New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd thinks of Sen. Rick Santorum as a religious fanatic. That’s what one expects from Dowd, whose contempt for the Catholic faith is as strong as her political liberalism. But for the past few days the Drudge Report, ordinarily friendly to conservative candidates, has been sending a similar message about Santorum. When I last checked, Drudge was giving top-of-the-page prominence to eight different stories about a speech that Santorum delivered three years ago, in which he said that “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America.”

Drudge does not make the point explicitly, but by giving the issue such saturation coverage, he is clearly conveying the impression that Santorum’s words were astonishing.

What makes the senator’s statement so remarkable? That he professed a belief in Satan? Tens of millions of American hold the same belief. That he believes Satan is active in American institutions? Well, if you believe in a malevolent being who seeks to harm mankind, wouldn’t you expect him to work his evil through existing institutions? Granted, we don’t expect to hear political candidates ascribe social problems to Satan. But at the time he delivered this speech—again, it was three years ago—Santorum was not a political candidate. He was speaking as a Catholic, to an audience of his fellow Catholics, at a Catholic university.

Now let’s be honest. Even in Catholic circles, one doesn’t hear Satan mentioned frequently. Many Catholics are uncomfortable with any discussion of unpleasant subjects such as the Devil, Hell, or even sin. Unless I am missing the point entirely, the subtle message of the Drudge Report coverage is that those Catholics—the ones who don’t mention things that might upset people–may be acceptable political candidates. But the ones like Santorum, who actually believe in Satan and say so, are beyond the pale. In other words, Catholics are acceptable candidates if and only if they are prepared to soft-pedal certain inconvenient Church teachings. That’s essentially the message that is regularly conveyed, in less subtle ways, by Maureen Dowd.

The US Constitution (Article VI) explicitly provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So the government cannot assign a formal religious test. But unless I am much mistaken, the America mass media are imposing an informal one. Santorum’s candidacy is questioned not because he is a Catholic, but because he’s that kind of Catholic. And if we could just eliminate that kind of Catholic, then we’d have… Do you see what we’d have? A political test for holding public office.

Nothing in the argument above should be understood as an endorsement of Sen. Santorum. I think he should be questioned sharply about his views and votes on both domestic and (especially) foreign policy. But not about his faith.

Filed under: General Stuff

Quiz Time

Put on your thinking caps and move away from the google.

 

Who said:

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

 

Filed under: General Stuff

Santorum’s Funding of Planned Parentood….

how can that be defended? As hard as it might be for some of my readers to believe, I have been hoping for the best in this situation, really hoping that he was just clueless and didn’t realize what, exactly it is, that Plann.ed Parenthoo.d does. Yet he just keeps going on and on about how wonderful it was that he funded it while in the senate.

I have been called a hate-monger or worse regarding my sharing of this information. I have been told that we are all on a journey for truth. Well, why is that when, presented with facts (truth about his voting record) from his own mouth that people still support Santorum? And they support him, to the point of lying about or denying his record.

I have said this before and I will continue to say it: Isn’t this the biggest insult of all, to have a man claiming to be pro-life yet funding the organization who is at the center of the Life v Choice debate?

 

Santorum’s vote to fund Planned Parenthood indefensible

by Joel McDurmon on Feb 22, 2012

Pro-life website LifeNews.com is attacking a new ad by the Ron Paul campaign which exposes some uncomfortable news for pro-lifers who support Rick Santorum. The ad (video below) simply exposes the fact that Santorum—a warhawk who describes himself as “consistently pro-life”—”even hooked Planned Parenthood up with a few million bucks.”

The statement in the Paul ad is absolutely true, and yet LifeNews’ headline reads “Paul Ad Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood.” The article then tries to defend Santorum’s vote, pointing out the vote was part of  ”an overall budget bill that funded the federal government that contained Title X funding,” and then showing that he has been a staunch supporter of funding abortions through PP.

Neither the headline nor the defense is acceptable. The ad does not argue or imply Santorum directly supports abortion, it just proves that he will compromise on the issue given the right circumstances. And it is an unavoidable fact that, for all of his boastful rhetoric about consistency on moral values, Santorum will flip-flop Mitt Romney style even here.

For example, although Santorum told Fox News “Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood,” he turned right around and literally wore his funding vote as a badge in another interview. Tom Woods exposed this nonsense here. Santorum in his own words:

“Just look at my record,” he said smiling, “I was criticized by governor Romney . . . or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception! That I voted for funding for, I think it was Title X, which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations even like Planned Parenthood.”

So in his own words, he voted to fund Planned Parenthood and that is exactly and all that the Paul ad states. What makes Christians and pro-lifers uncomfortable with this is not just the hypocrisy involved in voting to support, materially, PP while claiming to be “consistently” pro-life, but more importantly the fact that all funds are fungible. Giving PP funds for the purpose of contraception is just as bad as directly funding abortion because the money for other purposes simply frees PP’s other funds to be used for abortions. This is true for all federal funding in all areas of government.

And this is not just my argument, or Paul’s argument, it is Santorum’s own argument in yet another instance:

“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind.”

Can’t you, Rick? Because YOU voted to give PP just that: federal funding, and the most general kind of federal funding there is, directly from Congressional approval.

How in the world can anyone square his vote with his own words?

So while LifeNews may find it ethical to report that Paul’s ad “Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood,” I’m not sure how else the giving of federal funds can be defined other than ”Support.” Sure, Mr. Santorum may indeed oppose abortion, but due to this vote it is not wrong to imply or even to state openly that he has supported Planned Parenthood. That may be difficult to admit for some people, but it is a clear and inescapable fact.

Filed under: General Stuff