Canada is now rated higher for freedom than America

Unhappy Republicans Move to Canada? Economics-Wise, Not a Bad Destination.
J.D. Tuccille|Nov. 8, 2012 11:17 am

Among the perennial traditions of American politics are post-results, generally hot-air threats to flee the country if the “wrong” side wins — usually to Canada. Politico has a round-up of tweets by disappointed Republicans threatening to do just that. Leave aside, for now, that Canada doesn’t necessarily leave out the welcome mat for Americans upset over election outcomes. Politico writer Patrick Gavin thinks the whole thing — *chuckle*, *chuckle*, *snicker* — “doesn’t really make sense given Canada’s many socialized elements.” Except … it actually makes more sense than Gavin allows, if you’ve kept sufficiently up with the times to know that Canada now ranks as more free-market than the United States.

Assuming that the disappointed righties are of the sort that care more about economic freedom than banning abortions, Canada actually looks like a pretty promising destination. There are two big international indices of the relative economic freedom of nations, and Canada ranks rather higher than the United States in both of them.

On the Index of Economic Freedom, created by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, Canada is in sixth place, while the United States has fallen to tenth.

About Canada, the Index says:

Canada’s economic freedom score is 79.9, making its economy the 6th freest in the 2012 Index. Its overall score is 0.9 point lower than last year, reflecting worsening scores for government size and monetary freedom. Canada continues to be the freest economy in the North America region, though it has dropped just below the cutoff for characterization as a “free” economy.

Granted, that’s not a rousing endorsement. But compare that to what the Index says about the United States:

The United States’ economic freedom score of 76.3 drops it to 10th place in the 2012 Index. Its score is 1.5 points lower than last year, reflecting deteriorating scores for government spending, freedom from corruption, and investment freedom. The U.S. is ranked 2nd out of three countries in the North America region, and its overall score remains well above the world and regional averages.

The contrast is even more stark in the Economic Freedom of the World Report  compiled by an international coalition of organizations, including Canada’s Fraser Institute and America’s own Cato Institute. Here, Canada is ranked fifth, and the United States 18th. The report’s detailed look at North America  has this to say about the relative rankings of Canada and the United States:

Canada and the United States have pursued very different economic courses through the first decade plus a year of the 21st century. One course, followed by the United States, has led to decreasing economic freedom, especially as the financial crisis struck; the other has led Canada to a stable level of economic freedom with only small declines during the crisis.

Canada’s course was set in the mid-1990s, when the federal government dramatically reduced government spending. This led in time to a budget surplus, which disappeared during the recent financial crisis but allowed the federal government in Canada, unlike the American goverment, to avoid going deeply into deficit. The United States changed course in the early years of the new millennium, from fiscal responsibility and controlled spending to significant increases in spending and the creation of a huge budget deficit at the federal level, one that will likely lead to decreases in economic freedom in the future as coming generations will be taxed to pay off the debt created by the deficits.

It’s not just about overall government spending, though. Regulation plays a big role, too.

As well as the effects of loosened spending controls, the United States has faced several stock-market scandals, such as that brought on by Enron, and a housing bubble, at least in part caused by a failure of policy, the intervention of federal housing agencies in the housing market. Both developments have led to a spurt of regulatory growth, which has limited economic freedom. In addition, they have brought about numerous criminal prosecutions, which, if some are seen as having an arbitrary nature, may have contributed to a huge drop—from 9.23 in 2000 to 7.30 in 2009—in the United States’ score for Area 2: Legal Structure and Property Rights in Economic Freedom of the World: 2011 Annual Report. …

As an aside, it is worth noting that Canada achieved a higher economic-freedom score in credit regulations in the period leading up to the financial crisis—the Canadian regulatory climate was less restrictive of economic freedom than that in the United States—indicating that the solution to the crisis is not freedom-limiting regulations but rather properly structured regulations and the absence of the type of policy that can spur a bubble.

Oh … And the accounting firm KPMG says that Canada’s total tax burden is lower, on average, than that in the United States though the details depend on the structure of your finances and where, exactly, you live.

I’m sure that Mr. Gavin would, cleverly, retort, “but … but … socialized medicine!” And while it’s true that Canada does have a government-dominated healthcare system, the country has been moving, in recent years, toward embracing private medicine. By contrast, many of the GOP-types threatening to flee to Canada may, understandably, assume that Barack Obama’s re-election is moving the United States in the opposite direction, toward fully socialized medicine.

PROOF: OBAMA REFUSED TO CALL BENGHAZI ‘TERROR,’ CBS COVERED UP

PROOF: OBAMA REFUSED TO CALL BENGHAZI ‘TERROR,’ CBS COVERED UP

by JOEL B. POLLAK    5 Nov 2012, 8:04 AM PDT 

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the  media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack “terrorism” from the beginning.

CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama’s behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.

That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss–and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election–perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.

Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama’s re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues–namely, a terror attack and the president’s dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration’s shameless lies.

Obama calls for revenge. Maher” Blacks will come after you. NAACP takes over a polling place in Houston. Black Pastor gets death threats for Romney vote.

Bill Maher Warns Romney Supporters: ‘Black People Know Who You Are and They Will Come After You’

By Noel Sheppard | November 03, 2012 | 00:03

 21.9K  2958 Reddit423  1172
A  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time Friday might have said one of the most disgraceful things uttered during the 2012 campaign season.

“If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you” (video follows with commentary):

Imagine for a moment the outrage if a conservative commentator said even jokingly to Obama supporters, “White people know who you are and they will come after you.”

That would be the end of that person’s career. Period. No questions asked. Done!

But Maher who’s adored by the Obama-loving media can say this with total impunity.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: HBO should be ashamed to have this disgusting man as one of its on air personalities. Period. End of story.

 

BREAKING: NAACP Takes Over Houston Polling Station, Advocates for President Obama.

Nov 03, 2012 05:46 PM EST

HOUSTON, TX – Friday afternoon at an early polling place located at 6719 W. Montgomery Road in Houston, NAACP members were seen advocating for President Barack Obama according to volunteer poll watchers on location at the time.

According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity group True the Vote, three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line. While wearing NAACP labeled clothing, members were “stirring the crowd” and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote President Barack Obama.

After watching what was occurring, Rockford approached Polling Supervisor Rose Cochran about what she was seeing.

“I went to the polling supervisor and let her know that it was not appropriate that they were in the building handing out water. She ignored me. I repeated my statement. She told me that she would handle it. She did nothing. I then went to the assistant supervisor and he stood up, walked over to another table and then sat down. I then walked into the waiting room and they were reloading another dolly with more cases of water,” Rockford said in a True the Vote incident report.

After handing out water and advocating for President Obama, the NAACP members started handpicking and moving people to the front of a long voting line inside the polling place according to the incident report. After multiple complaints from voters about the line cutting, Rockford received a phone call from downtown telling her to “stand down.”

“All of the sudden one of the clerks, Dayan Cohen, said that someone wanted to speak to me on the phone. It was someone from downtown. I got on the phone and she said she was from downtown and that I needed to stand down and that it was okay for the NAACP to be within 100 ft. and they could hand out water. I told her that the NAACP was inside the building, wearing the NAACP clothing and caps and were handing out water and moving people from the back of the lines to the front of the lines,” Rockford said.

At this point, NAACP members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening. Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas NAACP leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

“The NAACP basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it,” Rockford said.

BLACK PASTOR RECEIVES DEATH THREATS FOR REVERSING SUPPORT FOR OBAMA

One Sacramento pastor, whose congregation has thousands of members, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but won’t be doing the same in 2012. 

 

Dem Campaign Field Director Forced to Resign

Dem Campaign Field Director Forced to Resign

AP Images

AP Images

BY: 
October 25, 2012 10:36 am

Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran has forced his son to resign from his campaign post after a sting video captured the younger Moran explaining how to commit mass voter fraud.

On Monday, conservative activist James O’Keefe released a hidden camera video of Patrick Moran, a field director in his father’s reelection campaign, instructing a man on how to forge utility bills in order impersonate inactive voters at polling places in Virginia.

O’Keefe released raw tape of the encounter, which shows an initially reluctant Moran embracing the idea of dodging new voter ID laws using forgeries. The full video is below.

This entry was posted in Congress and tagged ,. Bookmark the permalink.

Obama Wins! CBS Affiliate Reports 2012 Election Results Weeks Early.

Obama Wins! CBS Affiliate Reports 2012 Election Results Weeks Early

Posted by _Featured_PoliticsMonday, October 22nd, 2012

While the 2012 presidential election is still more than two weeks away, last Friday a CBS News affiliate in Arizona displayed a graphic with a Nationwide vote count indicating that President Barack Obama was the winner.

For 17 seconds at around 3:25 pm on October 19, Phoenix, Arizona CBS News affiliate KPHO ran a graphic showing President Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Governor Mitt Romney with 99% of the precincts reporting. The graphic appeared during an episode of “The People’s Court.”

The CBS News graphic showed Obama winning the election with 43 percent of the vote nationwide to Romney’s 40 percent — or 40,237,966 votes to 38,116,216. It is unclear who garnered the other 17 percent in the fictional election results.

This is what a losing incumbent looks like

 

When desperation strikes incumbents

POSTED AT 8:31 AM ON OCTOBER 20, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

It’s been a while since we’ve had an incumbent President lose an election.  In fact, it was 20 years ago, when George H. W. Bush lost in a three-way fight to Bill Clinton.  What made that election remarkable was that Bush had enjoyed some of the best-ever job approval ratings of any modern American President just a little over a year earlier, into the 80s — unthinkable these days for anyone, Republican or Democrat.  Bush, a decorated veteran of World War II and a longtime player in diplomacy and national security, lost the election to an upstart Governor when the economy turned somewhat sour.

I recall the moment when I realized for the first time — not feared, but realized — that Bush would lose the election.  Bush was campaigning in Michigan at the end of October, trying to whip some energy back into his campaign in the home stretch, a task that would fall far short just a few days later.  Then-Governor John Engler told the Warren, MI crowd that the Bush campaign was “hot” and the Democrats “dead in the water,” which was merely the kind of fantasy all campaigns spin toward the end.

Bush then spoke, and went after Clinton and Al Gore in a personal, demeaning way I’d not heard from the President before then:

At a midday GOP rally at Macomb Community College, the president unleashed a rhetorical fusillade on Bill Clinton and running mate Sen. Albert Gore Jr., attacking their fitness for office, their character and charging, “My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than these two bozos.”

In particular, Bush targeted Gore, whom he now calls “Ozone Man,” or just plain “Ozone.” “You know why I call him Ozone Man?” Bush said. “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man.”

When I heard that, I thought to myself, “What President talks like that?”  Part of the advantage the office gives an incumbent is its gravitas.  Bush’s own history as a diplomat, intelligence executive, and war hero gave him plenty more of that.  Bush abandoned that in the final week in schoolyard name-calling. That’s not why Bush lost the election, of course.  It was, however, the moment that I knew he’d lost it — and was pretty sure he knew he was losing, too.

Keep that in mind when you hear Barack Obama on the stump talking about “Romnesia.”  Those elementary-school attacks using people’s names are something one usually farms out to surrogates (and is pretty lame regardless).  That comes with the grasping of “binders,” literally grasping in Joe Biden’s case (and literally literally, not Bidenesque “literally”), as a major campaign theme. When the President himself starts using attacks like this, it speaks to his desperation more than his opponent’s positions.  It adds more heft to the argument that the first debate wasn’t a fluke, but demonstrated an actual gap in presidential stature between the two men.

I believe Romney is walking into a trap in the next debate.

 

                             CANDY CROWLEY

 

By Mario Murillo

I am sensing in the Spirit that a massive trap is being laid for Mitt Romney in the next debate.  Every alarm bell that I have within me is going off.    We must pray fervently for our nation and for the weapon formed against us to be diffused.

To begin with it does not take supernatural discernment to know that the deck is stacked by the moderator Candy Crowley from CNN.  She is an avid Obama supporter. She once referred to the Romney, Ryan ticket as “Republican suicide.”

Here is an excerpt of a post by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters:

As NewsBusters has been noting all Saturday morning, now that Paul Ryan has been chosen as Mitt Romney’s running mate, the goal of the Obama-loving media is to rip him to shreds.

Doing her part Saturday was CNN’s Candy Crowley who claimed some Republicans (unnamed, of course) think this “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.”

Crowley’s comments are in keeping with the media’s past treatment of GOP vice presidential nominees. Here’s a quick look at how the media have always echoed Democratic talking points against everyone from Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle to Dick Cheney and Jack Kemp.

Transcript of Crowley’s remarks is below:

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: We’ve already had this debate. All they have to do at Obama Reelect is open up the files because this debate has already happened. They just bring it back, it goes, it is, you know, what they talk about. But I think the other thing that’s worth pointing out is not every Republican has signed on to this kind of, I mean, they will publicly. But there is some trepidation…

GLORIA BORGER, CNN: They’re afraid.

CROWLEY: …that this might be, looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish. That, oh, my gosh, do we really want to talk about these thing? Is this where we want to go when the economy is so bad? We could have stayed on that.

A ticket death wish?

Readers are advised this came right after CNN’s Gloria Borger called Ryan “a polarizing figure.”

Is this how the folks at CNN think they’re going to improve their continually declining ratings?

The second paragraph of an earlier version of this piece read, “Doing her part Saturday was CNN’s Candy Crowley who said that this ‘looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.'” Also, the original title was, “CNN’s Candy Crowley: Ryan Pick ‘Looks a Little Bit Like Some Sort of Ticket Death Wish.'”

The piece has been changed to better reflect Crowley’s claim that this is coming from Republicans even though she didn’t name any.  This of course is a common strategy by media members to impart their own opinions by saying they came from nameless others.”

I believe that there will be plants in the town hall audience and that the questions will be blatantly slanted to make Romney look like the evil capitalist outsider and restore Obama’s tarnished image as the savior of the world.    The tone of the debate if it goes as planned, will be to make it seem that Obama is the only choice to avoid war and destruction, and that all he needs is a little more time.  Pray, Pray, Pray.

I know that these feelings do not hit me without cause.  I am calling on God’s people everywhere to pray for the entire hoax to be exposed.   It is time to put an end to this dictatorship of the Obama administration and the news media.

 

 

 

 

The Night before he appeared on UNIVISION, Obama gave network owner’s wife a U.N. appointment.

Hello friends,  Today we say to our growing blog audience that Obama did not get you  a job, but he did get one for a billionaire’s wife.   How he did it is the stuff of penny ante dictators and why he did it should be a long overdue wake up call to Latino Christians.

According to the Politico blog, Haim Saban, owner of the television network, backed Hillary Clinton in 2008, but during the summer donated $1 million to groups supporting the campaigns of Democrats. And according to another blog in Spanish of Yahoo, the appointment of Cheryl Saban to the diplomatic post was made last Wednesday, the day before Obama appeared at a forum at the University of Miami hosted by Univision.

Haim Saban, a billionaire businessman, took control of Univision in 2006 topping a bid made by media conglomerate Televisa of Mexico.

“Mrs. Saban has never worked in diplomatic posts but has been active in philanthropic and non-profit organizations such as CARE USA, Children’s Network International, Mercy Corps, Plan USA,” stated Yahoo, which said Haim Saban’s fortune is worth $3.6 billion and is listed by Forbes magazine as one of the 100 richest men in America.

Okay take a deep breath and consider the corruption of power you have just read.  No one can call this an innocent coincidence.  No one can deny the twin disasters this represents.

  1. It is a corrupt and dangerous quid pro quo between a vast media outlet and the presidency.
  2. Obama is abusing his power of diplomatic appointment to win the Latino vote.
  3. There is a breathtaking arrogance of doing something this blatant.  It shows how reckless he is with power.

Let me take this opportunity to plead with Latino Christians who still think Obama is for us to wake up.  He does not care about us or our families.  To abandon your Bible faith because you believe he will help your family members that are here illegally is naïve and hypocritical.  He has had 4 years to fix immigration and seal the border, he has done nothing and he will do nothing.

Take another look at Obama…he has abandoned black Christians because he no longer needs them.  He represents the liberal myths that have kept minorities victimized.   Let’s not make Latinos the next victimized minority.  We do not want food stamps, we want a paycheck.  We cannot help our families if Obama crashes our economy.   Again, do not leave your Christian convictions outside the voting booth.

Hell bent on reelecting Obama the media covers and twists vital information.

This is Mario,  I am presenting this to you in the hopes of waking up a nation in a coma.   This first article shows how massively Obama has failed as our leader.  It is a vivd example of how tenderly the media treats its idealogical love child and how dishonest and brutal they are to anyone who dares question the anointed one.  Read Philip Klein’s piece:

 

Philip Klein

How the media turned Obama’s foreign policy bungle into a Romney gaffe

We’re still learning more details about the events leading up to and surrounding the attacks by Islamic radicals on the U.S. consulate in Libya and embassy in Egypt, but the media has already agreed on one thing: Mitt Romney is the political loser.

“Unless the Romney campaign has gamed this crisis out in some manner completely invisible to the Gang of 500, his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign,” opined Time’s Mark Halperin.

That instant conventional wisdom is a pretty fortunate turn of events for Obama, given that it diverted focus from his administration’s bungled handling of the entire situation and the failure of his broader foreign policy posture.

When President Obama came into his office, he vowed to repair the damage to the U.S. image abroad that was done by the Bush administration. In April 2009, less than three months into his presidency, he boasted to the Turkish government of having ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and prohibited the use of torture. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” he went on, referring to the legacies of slavery, segregation and the treatment of Native Americans.

In June, Obama delivered a speech in Cairo in which he called for “a new beginning” between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Taken together, such instances became known in conservative circles as the “apology tour.” Though fact checkers have pointed out that Obama never literally issued an apology, it’s clear that Obama was trying to make a break with the past. Especially in the Middle East, he wanted to send the signal that his approach would be more conciliatory and sensitive to Islamic values than what preceded it.

Yet, on Tuesday, the breach of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11 and replacement of the American flag with one resembling the flag of al Qaeda represented an example of the type of anti-American sentiment that Obama’s more conciliatory posture was meant to quell. Later, we learned that an American ambassador had been killed in an attack in Libya, along with three other diplomats.

When a statement surfaced from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo condemning, “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” and “firmly [rejecting] the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” it looked like weakness in the face of the attack.

There are conflicting reports as to whether this statement — a reference to an online American-made film mocking Islam — was issued before or after the assault on the embassy started. But on its Twitter account, the Embassy later reiterated that its statement “still stands.” Back in Washington, the Obama administration distanced itself from its own embassy’s statement, which isn’t some minor outpost but the representative of U.S. policy in arguably the most important Arab nation. Soon, the Embassy began deleting messages from its official Twitter account, including the one standing by its initial statement.

This looked like amateur hour, and it also fed into the broader critique many Republicans have made of the Obama administration. So it seemed natural that Romney would release a statement Tuesday night condemning both the attacks and Obama’s weak response. But Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt shot back and said he was “shocked” Romney would play politics at such a time. And the media fell into line.

When Romney gave a press conference Wednesday, the questions focused on whether it was appropriate for him to criticize Obama at the time he did. Romney’s responses didn’t really matter, because reporters had already decided their narrative. Obama did not take any questions in his own press conference moments later.

In 2004, John Kerry routinely attacked President Bush’s handling of Iraq when things weren’t going well in the country. And the media dutifully reported on Bush’s foreign policy blunders in Iraq. But now, instead of scrutinizing Obama’s handling of a foreign policy crisis, the media has decided that the real story in Egypt and Libya is a Mitt Romney gaffe.

Philip Klein (pklein@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @philipaklein.

Brad Pitt’s mom writes a letter

I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.

But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.

Editor’s note: To clear up earlier confusion, the News-Leader has verified the letter writer is the mother of actor Brad Pitt and local businessman Doug Pitt.