You're reading...
abortion, Bioethics, Conservative, Election 2014, Family and Marriage, Life Issues, National, Politicians, Politics, Pro-life, Republican

About Katrina Pierson for Congress

Pierson social issues not ConstitutionalI hope everyone is looking carefully at the anti-incumbent candidates in the upcoming Republican Primary. Not all of them are as conservative as they would have you believe.

For instance, there’s the candidate running against conservative, prolife, pro-family Congressman Pete Sessions of the Texas Congressional District 32.

Katrina Pierson, who last achieved notoriety when she called an honorable man “deformed” due to his injuries as a Marine in Iraq.

However, few heard about Pierson’s anti-Conservative tweets on “social issues” and “homosexuality” which were the subject of a Wingright.org post a month later, just before the run-off in July, 2012.

Pierson Homosexuality not in constitution

(These Tweets are evidently still on her Twitter account, as I downloaded them anew, today, February 16, 2014. I wonder how long she’ll leave them up?)

It’s important that those voting know about how the candidates really feel about the “social issues,” don’t you think?

I’ve asked some supporters of Pierson to speak to her and get her on record as pro-life and pro-marriage, but haven’t heard back from them. I hope before you vote for her, you will ask her yourself.

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)

Discussion

6 thoughts on “About Katrina Pierson for Congress

  1. I take it that she really a libertarian and not a conservative republican

    Posted by Matthew Cowan | February 16, 2014, 6:26 PM
    • That’s my impression – and willing to knock down conservative values to win.

      Posted by bnuckols | February 16, 2014, 11:18 PM
      • Uh huh… what are these conservative values you speak of exactly? You seem to think it’s perfectly ok for government to impose your religious preferences on others by force. I find it funny that SoCons thank Jesus (rightfully) for saving them from the effects of the Law on the one hand, and then they make it their life’s work to impose the Law on other people (most of whom are non-Christians) on the other (remind anyone of Matthew 18:21-35?). You cannot legislate morality, and forced morality is not morality at all. The bible is actually pretty clear on that. Trying to forcibly impose morality on other people is such a fruitless, empty, and self-defeating endeavor. Why do SoCons not see that?

        Posted by Matt M | March 6, 2014, 9:22 PM
        • There is a biological and societal rationalization behind the support for marriage and distaste for normalization of homosexuality.

          Male and female are complementary – while biology is not destiny, form follows function, if you will.

          Further,marriage of one man to one woman serves best to keep government out of inheritance and paternity/maternity rights and separation of property.

          There is ample evidence that the best environment for the child is in the home of his two biological parents. There is less than 20 years of history of legalized same sex couples, so there simply isn’t enough data to justify endorsing what amounts to a very risky experiment with the children of tomorrow.

          Marriage between same-sex partners is not actually possible without redefining marriage. Even in polygamy, one man married one woman – the man and his current wives did not enter into a group marriage with another woman.

          Think of it this way: No one ever said you had to redesign the water fountain to prevent the Black man from drinking from it. Neither did anyone ever claim that marriage would need to be redefined to accommodate interracial marriages. We do say that there is no historical or biological basis for same sex “marriages.”

          More importantly, Ms. Pierson chose to run as a Republican candidate. We Republicans have established a very democratic method of writing and endorsing our Platform. If you want to be a Republican, you should be prepared to follow at least the major points of our Platform. Marriage as traditionally defined – and the fact that we follow Judeo-Christian principles are among the “Principles” that lead off our Platform. http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

          Posted by bnuckols | March 7, 2014, 12:27 AM
        • To your above comment, and much like Pierson said, if there are biological and societal reasons for it, then biology and society can sort that out without government interference. Clearly, male and female are complementary. I don’t disagree. Why is it necessary to have a law that forces this point? If someone wants to act in a foolish, inefficient, irrational, or un-complementary way (and it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of others), then they should be allowed to do so… and also suffer the consequences for those actions. Honestly, God can enforce his own natural laws without our help.

          The beauty of the Libertarian political philosophy Pierson is getting at is it’s consistency. Reagan once famously said that “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem.” Libertarian Conservatives just apply this consistently across the board and not just when it suits their interests. If we believe something is bad (and even if it can be shown to be bad for people) we should not rush to government to regulate it or limit it or ban it. Consuming a bunch of candy, sweets, and sugary beverages is bad for you. It’s bad for children. It could damage them for life. The resulting health problems create a burden on society, but most conservatives (social or otherwise) would outright reject (and rightly so) a ban on candy or soft drinks. We recognize that If people want to be unhealthy, it is ultimately their choice to do so. They will have to face the consequences for those actions. That is personal responsibility. As long as social conservatives try to get government to stop everyone else from doing things they personally oppose, then you can expect all the liberal special interest groups to continue to do the same… and you really can’t attack them for doing so without being hypocritical. That is a losing battle. The Libertarian Conservative approach shuts all of that down by saying no one gets to use government to impose their preferences or beliefs on others. Instead, everyone is free to hold to their own beliefs without interference… and they are even free to promote those beliefs in their family and community as they see fit (again, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of others). That seems like an extremely reasonable (and even Biblically-compatible) way of doing things to me.

          Posted by Matt M | March 7, 2014, 4:36 PM
    • She sounds kinda Libertarian to me. Small government all around… not just when it suits you.

      Posted by Matt M | March 6, 2014, 9:10 PM

I moderate comments, but will try to be quick. Please leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

@bnuckols tweets

Click here to get your “Choose Life” license plate

Rick Perry RickPAC

Yes, I'm still for Governor Perry!

RickPAC

What to read around here

Archives

SiteMeter

%d bloggers like this: