Tom Perriello: A pro-life fraud

| October 12, 2010 | 17 Comments

Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello tells conservatives that he’s pro-life.

Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello tells liberals that he’s pro-“choice.”

Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello wants each of his constituents to believe that he is on their side of the abortion battle.

A much as Two-faced Tom wishes it were so, he cannot maintain diametrically opposed positions on life. Sooner or later, the fraud will be exposed.

So, where does the truth lie?

In an August 12, 2008 radio interview on WINA’s The Schilling Show, it was revealed that:

Democrat Tom Perriello favors embryonic stem cell research.

Democrat Tom Perriello would not ban 3rd trimester abortions.

Democrat Tom Perriello supports Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land and would not favor its repeal.

Are these legitimate positions of a “pro-life” congressman?

Are these legitimate positions of a professing Catholic?

Are these legitimate positions of a man of “faith”?

No, no, and no.

Regardless of his public proselytizing, regardless of his street corner proclamations of faith, regardless of his (hypocritical) mandate for “volunteer” tithing, Tom Perriello remains a secular progressive.

In November 2008, Tom Perriello fooled you once.

In November 2010, don’t let Tom Perriello fool you again.

Tom Perriello has made it clear: Tom Perriello is a pro-life fraud.

Still don’t believe the allegations about Perriello’s pro-death views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and Roe v. Wade? View the video to hear Perriello in his own words:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTw9kDt_lK4

About the Author:

Rob Schilling is founder of The Schilling Show Blog and News; host of WINA's The Schilling Show, heard weekdays from noon to 2 PM; husband; father; and community watchdog.
×

17 Comments on "Tom Perriello: A pro-life fraud"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ken says:

    Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello tells conservatives that he’s pro-life.

    Quote him. That link provides no evidence for the charge, and what the tape shows is that while he was naturally reluctant to talk about an no-win issue, he did finally tell you otherwise. And was “it revealed” on the show that Perriello holds pro-choice positions? No. Perriello chose to reveal that himself.

    If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, make sure you’re telling the truth yourself.

  2. A Patriot says:

    From The Bible, Matthew Chapter 5: 33 – 37 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

    Yet again, the constant critic and defender of all things liberal, fails to hit the mark. I submitted a letter to (candidate) Perriello shortly after that August 2008 appearance on your show Rob. I mailed it and also submitted it by U.S. Postal Service. It was never responded to. Neither was the second letter and e-mail that was submitted to (Now Rep.) Perriello. Which ultimately appeared as an open letter on this site. However, in calling the campaign office, I of course was not able to speak with the “busy” candidate. When I inquired as to where Tom stood on this issue, from both a Catholic standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of a man raised in the discipline of Scouting, the answer went something like this. “While Mr. Perriello’s personal beliefs are such that life is precious and worth protecting, he would not seek to reverse the law of the land established under the Roe v Wade decision.”

    Sooooooooooooooooooo, there you have it. Once again, another great example of trying to have it both ways, and being able to justify talking out of both sides of your mouth. It goes back to the Clintonian method of defining what the word “is” is, and separating one’s private and public life. While he may claim to be pro-life in private, he, like most typical politicians, will promote the pro-death stance, because it is politically expedient to do so. This is not what the Catholic Faith nor Scouting teaches you. Perhaps he learned this overseas on the African coast, and allowed that to supplant good old American values.

    Rob, I would strongly urge your critics to take the time to maybe actually COMMUNICATE with their party leaders, and really get to know and understand where they stand before vainly attempting to render a failed defense! If you are going to take the time to constantly be a critic, take the time to research the issue.

  3. Ken says:

    Posting a page of links in which “Periello” and “pro-life” appear in the same sentence does nothing to answer my charge. Being “pro-life” as conservatives define it has a very specific and narrow definition – being opposed to legalized abortion – and there is no evidence here that Perriello claims to hold that position. There is direct evidence to the contrary.

    The Congressman is telling the truth. Rob is playing games with semantics, and is not telling the truth.

  4. Realist says:

    So you, as Patriot did, took the time to make a phone call, send an e-mail, something-anything, and you can without reservation, state that Tom is telling the truth and Rob is lying. You’ve actually spoken with Tom, or a memeber of his staff in the last twenty-four hours since your last post? Be most careful with your answer. What little is left of your credibility rests heavily upon that answer.

  5. Ken says:

    Realist and Patriot, are you one and the same guy? Because you always strike the same tone, in the same prose style, and I’m afraid you have trouble with simple logic. If you want to prove I’m wrong, instead of rebutting something I haven’t said which is beside my point, reread the first two words I wrote: “quote him.”

  6. Realist says:

    Ken, inquiring as to whether or not Patriot and I are one in the same would be just about as ridiculous as questioning whether or not the images of the multi thousands of people on the mall in D.C., protesting current government policies, has been photo shopped. Can’t you see that people are waking up? Though the voices may be many, the message is obviously the same. Stop deflecting from the point. We have seen for years the bee hive mentality of the left, assualting local and national arenas of ideas, with a scripted set of talking points. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but its not just me and Patriot that share a core belief in relgious values, patriotism, and concern for those generations that come behind us. You’ll have a better understanding after November 2nd.

    The simple logic is this, and remains unanswered, again. Have you or have you not, spoken to Perriello or any member of his staff, and had clarification on this issue? Borrowing from the quotation of my alleged alter ego, let your yes be a yes, your no be a no.

  7. Ken says:

    It isn’t your point of view that makes me wonder if you’re the same person, it’s your tone and over the top (for example, “assaulting”) wording, and your incomprehension.

    We have seen for years the bee hive mentality of the left, assualting local and national arenas of ideas, with a scripted set of talking points

    Ideologues and haters on both the left and the right write sentences like that one, imagining the worst about their enemies, and imagining they never stoop so low themselves.

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but its not just me and Patriot that share a core belief in relgious values, patriotism, and concern for those generations that come behind us.

    See my reply above. Liberals are also patriotic and concerned for future generations, and many, like myself share your religious values.

    Have you or have you not, spoken to Perriello or any member of his staff, and had clarification on this issue?

    Again, either you can’t comprehend a simple point of logic, or you’re obfuscating. Rob has already asked for and received clarification from the congressman himself. See the You Tube clip above. I asked Rob for proof that Perriello has contradicted himself elsewhere, claiming to be opposed to legal abortion. Rob can’t provide it, and neither can you. Therefore, the sentence “Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello tells conservatives that he’s pro-life” is clever semantics, i.e. a lie.

    If you’re going to trumpet your religious values, you have to try to live them publicly, which means backing down and apologizing when you don’t. Otherwise, non-religious people are going to call you a hypocrite, and you won’t have a Christian witness. Which is the situation the often mean-spirited, truth-shaving Religious Right is in right now.

  8. Realist says:

    I find it fascinating that you can claim to share my patriotic and religious views, yet take me to task for them. Your kind has always perplexed me. God made the truth in simple terms. Yet, your kind have found ways to prevert and distort the truth, so that sexual deviancy is excused and the murder of unborn children, those that the Bible has always stated were to be considered sacred and a blessing, is explained. I do live by my religious values, in private and in public. Perhaps if more people attempted to do the same, we would not find ourselves in the dire straits that we do.

    As for backing down and apologizing, OVER MY DEAD BODY, FORGET IT! I am not ashamed of the salvation I received at the cost of God’s only begotten son. I’ve never considered renouncing my faith in nearly a half century, and I’m certainly not going to now. Thats been the problem since the sixties. We tried to understand and compromise with the fools dancing around naked at Woodstock. What their parents should have done is gathered them all together, and applied a board of correction to the seat of the problem. Mans lies written in ink will never overcome HIS truth, written in blood.

  9. Ken says:

    Realist, remind me not to reply to you any more after this. I’m beginning to think you’re putting me on and baiting me by posting as a cartoon caricature of a conservative. In any case, you’ve twisted everything I’ve said and I’ll not bother to rebut your rebuttal to things I didn’t say.

  10. Scribe says:

    Perhaps it is more noticeable in this election season, due to the stress the economy is under, unemployment, housing, etc. It is important to remember though that political doublespeak is the norm. Indeed, I think the American public take it as a given any more. Certainly, it goes back further than the first Pres. Bush, and his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. It is simply easier to compare. Lets face it. not that long ago, a politician could go around in a car, a train, a horse and buggy, and deliver an all things to all people type of speach. How would you compare the notes? Unless it was a Titanic/Hindenberg kind of headline, even newspapers weren’t sharing. Congressman Perriello is doing nothingmore than any politician, from either side of the aisle has done. Its just easier for the public to catch someone in their own words. Look at how many times we’ve heard “shovel ready projects” or “I’m not a witch” inthe last few newscycles. Its not new, just more noticeable. You would think that politicians would have learned this by now.

  11. M@gnolia says:

    Anyone who can say “God made the truth in simple terms” hasn’t read the Bible.

    Two weeks ago, I’m just reading along in Judges and come across a story about a woman who was gang-raped, who died as a consequence, and who then was dismembered–all apparently on the theory that it was better for all that to happen to her than for insult to be offered to one to whom hospitality had been extended…

    My priest and I had to do some work on that one.

    So I repeat: If the Bible is simple to you, then I’m thinking your reading skills are on a par with Ric Barrick’s proofreading skills.

    As for the rest of this debate: yawn.

  12. M@gnolia says:

    To clarify, “on the theory that it was better for all that to happen to her than for insult to be offered to A MAN to whom hospitality had been extended…”

Post a Comment