New Hampshire ABC “Debate” Fiasco
Did you see the debate last Saturday night?
Fully 25% of the questions asked of candidates for president – 12 out of 48 questions – dealt with homosexuals and birth control!
Diane Sawyer – whose head appeared to be mounted on a spring nodding up and down without apparent purpose; and who appeared to have been drinking heavily before the debate, seemed concerned that the candidates be able to tell homosexuals what to do:
“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”
What? Apparently Sawyer thinks it’s the job of the president to explain to homosexuals what they should do – they need a solution, I guess. This seems more like a question she should ask people who approve of homosexual activity. Perhaps she should ask the nearest Democrat – surely they would know what homosexuals are supposed to do and I’m sure they would be happy to offer a solution. Since they approve all things gay I’m sure they could say what they want homosexuals to do.
The obvious answer to Sawyer’s question about what homosexuals should do to form a loving, committed, long-term relationship from a conservative would be, “Form a loving, committed, long-term relationship.” What else needs to be said? I can hardly wait for the bobble head to ask Mr. Obama what he wants loving Christians in committed, long-term relationships to do who want their children protected from the nihilism of public schools which mock virtue and promote hedonism. That should be fun – perhaps he will ask for vouchers for private education. Well, maybe not.
Josh McElveen – a local ABC newsperson in love with the sound of his own voice – asked, “We’re in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry – 1,800, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. … And they’re trying to start families, some of them…” under the apparent delusion that it is possible that homosexuals can actually start families. Perhaps he should accompany Diane Sawyer to the nearest Democrat to find out what homosexuals do, and then he would understand why they, “starting families,” could be a problem.
Of course what he was actually asking was about how important it is to take a child – currently in state custody for whatever reason – and placing him in the custody of people who abhor the kind of activity that can actually produce a child. Apparently this sounds like a good idea to him.
Newt Gingrich responded with this zinger:
I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias that the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways, there there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered in the news media.
The inquisitors did not answer his questions.
Tomás de Torquemada – I’m terribly sorry, I meant George Stephanopoulos (who was fixated on birth control for some reason) spent his time asking 7 of the total of 48 questions about the burning issue of birth control. That’s 14% of all the questions asked during a presidential debate! As you are well aware, people everywhere are concerned that the next president might arrange to have one of the states decide to ban birth control. Perhaps access to birth control has been a problem for him in the past; who knows? Who cares?
“Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Makes sense that he would ask this burning question; as everybody knows one of the top issues in many states is whether or not the state should ban birth control. And since so many states are considering banning it, George wanted to know if the constitutional right to privacy would trump their evil plan.
Of course there is no constitutional right to privacy except as outlined in the implications of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The word “privacy” does not appear anywhere in the constitution; perhaps George should spend more time reading the text of the constitution and less time agonizing over the critical, hot button issue of birth control.
Why should conservatives subject themselves to a panel of nitwits so obtuse as to not ask even one question that is on the minds of Americans as they consider who they should vote for president? Well, I think that answer is that ABC has an obvious intent of making Republican candidates for president look like rubes if at all possible; with the accompanying intent to re-electing Barack Obama next year.
Here’s what is not important to the ABC panel when it comes to consideration of who should be the next president. Not one question whatsoever about the following:
- Whether or not states have the right to ban abortion; their only concern being about states banning birth control.
- The miserable state of American public education
- The constitutional violations of the EPA, like filing suit against an Idaho couple to prevent them from building a house of their own lot. “I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day,” Obama to EPA staff January 10, 2012.
- Nothing about the National Labor Relations Board working to control which states a company can operate in.
- Nothing about Obamacare unconstitutional mandates.
- Apparently they are only concerned about individual privacy as it concerns Griswold V. Connecticut concerning contraception (decided by the Supreme Court in 1965) but have no concern about the privacy of medical records under Obamacare.
- National accumulated debt leading us close to bankruptcy.
- Lowered U.S. credit rating
- The high rate of unemployment
- Iran and nukes
- Unconstitutional non-recess, recess appointments
- Disemboweling our military in announcements just two days before the debate announcing plans to lay off 80,000 soldiers.
- One American in eight is on food stamps – an all-time record under the Obama administration. Move along – nothing to see here.
- Increase in poverty. Move right along.