One of the best perspectives on life I have seen. Please watch and share.

I would challenge Darcie Salmon, Steve Colligan, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich, Sean Parnell, Mead Treadwell and Sarah Palin, to watch this movie and then explain why they have voted the way they have done. Then I want to see not only a change of heart, but a change of the way they vote and the public actions they take in the future. One person CAN change the world.

http://www.180movie.com/

I also put that same challenge out to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, John Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Michelle Bachmann.

Many of these people would say they are pro-life and support pro-life causes, but have any of them supported candidates who are pro-abortion?

Here are some facts about two people many of these candidates have supported in the past:

Here is a quote made after a debate between Romney & Kennedy in 1994. "Romney demonstrated very clearly in the debate last night that he has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with Conservatives. Conservatives should not let their disgust with Ted Kennedy's big government liberal record blindly lead them to support Mitt Romney." Brent Bozell, UPI October 26, 1994

"...every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life." - Mitt Romney, Meet the Press 12/16/07
The above statement made in 2007 sounds good doesn't? Makes us all warm and fuzzy. It also sounds very much like the line he gave Governor Huckabee on his FOX News show on October 1, 2011.

Romney is definitely a modern version of a snake oil salesman. On the Huckabee Show, Governor Huckabee asked him about the $50 co-pay for abortions in Romneycare. Romney said he didn't want it and blamed that on the state supreme court and the state constitution. He said he couldn't do anything to change or stop it. If that's the case why is it that Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, but he did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling)? All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation.

Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative. "You cannot be personally opposed to abortion and then contribute money to an organization whose purpose is to provide abortions," said Jerry Zandstra. "Given the Romney family's support of Planned Parenthood, it now makes sense why he mandated that a member of the RomneyCare Policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts." (RepealRomneyCare.com, "Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Romney's Planned Parenthood Connections," Press Release, 5/10/07)

Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups. "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this  week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. 'And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,' Romney said..." (Scott Helman, "Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law," Boston Globe, 12/9/05)

Romney wants to portray himself as a true conservative who Christians could wholeheartedly support. Here is a video that shows the truth. Does Romney have a bad memory or just a truth problem? Let him tell you out of both sides of his mouth! Sometimes the truth hurts especially when your are caught twisting it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEi4NUbRK-o

Romney says, "One of the great things about our nation Sally, is that we are each entitled to have strong personal beliefs. And we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe Abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe since Roe v Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support that law and I will sustain and support that law and the right of a women to make that choice. My personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people should not be brought in to a political campaign." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYU

How can you separate your personal and political views and convictions when your personal views are what form your worldview and political stands and actions?

Ted Kennedy stated when running against Romney. "I support Roe v Wade. I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice."
How does Romney reconcile that? How does Romney respond to his own statement that he will do more to support gay rights than Senator Ted Kennedy? Does Romney still believe that the Boy Scouts of America should be required to admit "all people regardless of their sexual orientation?"
Many feel strongly that we must support true conservative Republicans and wants to support the nominee, but where do we finally draw the line and hold them accountable? I know that listening and hearing the LORD's direction is of vital importance to many of us, however I have never heard GOD tell me to support someone who is diametrically opposed to the things of the LORD for any reason and certainly not for something as trivial as just because they happen to be a Republican!

Even if Romney does win (Heaven forbid!) the GOP nomination, and he did win over Obama (of which I have serious doubts that he could do) what is to keep him from flipping again? What would hold him to a true conservative line? Certainly not moral conviction or his political worldview. Herman Cain strongly supported Romney in 2008. Why?

Americans deserve the real truth of where Romney stands on all issues, most importantly, the issues of life and marriage. Is Romney still against Reagan like he was when he ran against Ted Kennedy? Or is he now a solid "Reagan Conservtive" now that he knows that's what Americans want and need?

These videos show the truth about Romney in his own words. We can not support that no matter if he running on a Republican ticket or not. So our only recourse to show the truth and nominate someone worthy of conservative support.

Many say, at the end of the day, if people end up giving Romney the nomination, he is a whole lot better that Obama. But why must we always settle for the best of two evils? Many of us want get out and find the true conservatives that we can back without regret and help them win the primary, then we can go full speed ahead in the general and get rid of Socialist Obama.

Even though She has voted on some bills that have been construed by the “pro-choice” lobby to be votes against abortion, she is in no way pro-life.

Murkowski is NO asset to the Republican coalition. (so why did Santorum highly endorse and campaign for both times she ran, in 2010 against real conservative Republican challenger Joe Miller?)
She has supported TARP and other big government programs.
 She talks about how terrible Obamacare is but refused to support the repeal of it until she was basicly forced to by her real conservative Republican challenger Joe Miller.
 She refused to sign the Personhood Initiative.
 She refused to support Alaskans for Parental Rights.
She has voted against the majority of Republicans on tax relief for small business, earmarks, military funding, veterans services and care, children born and unborn, border control, immigration, illegal aliens, government waste.
 She in NOT pro-life, NOT pro-family, NOT marriage. She is NOT pro second amendment, NOT pro military, and she will not support equitable Tax reform.
Here below are just a few of her votes that show where she really stands! Murkowski is a liability, NOT an asset to the Republican Caucus in the Senate!

Murkowski is a pro-choice Republican whose liberal spending record has earned her the distinction of last year being named one of the "Top five RINO's" in the Senate, according to Human Events (3/11/09).
Murkowski is a member of the Republican Pro-choice Caucus.

In 2009 Murkowski sided with Senate Democrats to approve Hate Crimes legislation conferring protected minority status to homosexuality.

 She also voted on two separate occasions to strike down the "Mexico City Policy" first passed by President Reagan, which limited U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions to only those involving rape, incest, and the life of the mother for international groups.

In fact Murkowski has joined the Democrats in voting against her Republican colleagues in the Senate no less than 307 times while in office.

As a Representative of the 4th most Republican state in the nation, Senator Murkowski has strayed far to the left of her constituency.
 She publicly declared to her Senate Colleagues, "I don't think the American Taxpayer is concerned so much about how much we spend, so long as we do it responsibly and with accountability." (2/13/09)
 Below are some of the votes that should be problematic for anyone interested in promoting the Republican Party platform and conservative principles.

On Social Issues:
—1/28/09 – Murkowski voted (with the Democrats) to remove limitations prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortions in all cases — re: "Mexico City Policy" S Amdt 65 to HR 2

—1/29/09 – Murkowski voted (with the Democrats) against the Hatch Amdt to specify that an unborn child is eligible for child health assistance under CHIPRA (S. Amdt 80 to HR 2)

—3/14/08 – Murkowski voted (with the Democrats) against SCHIP provision to codify the unborn child regulation (S. Amdt 4233 to SCR 70)

—10/18/07 –Murkowski voted (with the Democrats) against the prohibition of funds to grantees who perform abortions (Amdt 3330 to HR 3043)

—9/6/2007 – Murkowski voted NO (with the Democrats) on Amdt to prevent contributions to organizations that perform or promote abortion (S. Amdt 2708 to HR 2764)

—4/11/07 – Murkowski voted YES (with the Democrats) on Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5)

—7/18/06 – Murkowski voted YES (with the Democrats) on Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2005 (HR 810)

—3/12/2003 – voted YES (with the Democrats) on Amdt to express the sense of the Senate affirming that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided (Amdt 260 to S. 3)


On Healthcare :
Murkowski stated publicly that she opposed the repeal of Obamacare —KTUU interview —March 30, 2010

— Murkowski voted numerous times for entitlements
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act = $73.8 billion HR 2 1/29/09
Children's Health Insurance Program = $75.65 billion HR 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 11/1/07
HR 1 Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003, Concurrence 11/25/03
S1 Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003— Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Entitlement = $461 billion through 2013 6/26/03