Santorum “severely wrong” on TEA Party
“If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.”
So writes Gene Healy at Reason.com after reviewing Rick Santorum’s 2012 campaign promise to “re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships … for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood.”
And this is just the beginning as the writer judges the surging Saint to be the “arch-nemesis” of liberty:
In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”
In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation’s schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.
Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: “On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.”
Rick Santorum: He’s from the government, and he’s here to help.
While I do not agree totally with Healy on all matters, he is absolutely correct to criticize Santorum in these regards. We’re talking about a guy who openly disavows the TEA party and its influence:
In that same talk in Harrisburg, he said, “I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
And yet self-identified TEA party conservatives are rushing in where only big-government tyrants dare to tread:
Santorum needn’t have worried: In this year’s contests, he’s regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the “intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement.”
Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.
Continue Reading on reason.com
Hosea had it right when he said in 4:6 ~ "My people perish for their lack of knowledge"!
From what I am seeing, to date, the American MAJORITY is going to screw-up AGAIN by their ignorance of Dr. Ron Paul…along with the WORDS of our country's founders!!!
I am not ignorant of Ron Paul. He is a Progressive nutjob.
Ron Paul is conservative. Santorum would violate the Constitution. And, Gingrich is a clown. Can you please give details as to why he is a "nutjob"? Can you please look up information as to what we are talking about Santorum and Gingrich? Then, again you'll only ignore it because details have already been shown to you but you just ignore it.
Quit smoking them funny ceg. and wake up Ron Paul and the people that follow are nut-bags to
How are we nutbags? Can you produce how I and Ron Paul are nutbags? If this is your only evidence, then, you're not going far with your argument. For real, do the Establishment supports have a bigger vocabulary than nut-bags or nutjobs?
Pride goeth before a fall. Anyone who supports Paul or Santorum better understand it. Ron Paul is the scum of the earth. Santorum is a big gov't man. Paul is still pissed because he had to go to Vietnam. I like people who can be humble enough to admit when they are wrong. Gingrich did this.
Now as to RP being a nutjob. Anyone who says 9/11 was our fault is a traitor and completely out of touch with reality or who calls a lowlife traitro like Bradley Manning a hero. RP violates the Constitution by sticking earmarks in "pork" which is a clear violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Oh yes, I know he votes no, but he knows the bills will pass. Thus this pile of excrement can bring home the bacon while he says he never voted for an earmark. LOL. Such a liar. I just love his facist newsletters too. He can never lie his way out of them no matter how he tries to spin it. So actually calling Paul a nutjob is being kind to him, What he is is a TRAITOR. Take this pile of offal and shove him up your ostrich mentality butt!
"Paul is still pissed because he had to go to Vietnam." Where did you serve?
"I like people who can be humble enough to admit when they are wrong." You first.
Name-calling is NOT helpful.
I like a lot of what RP has to say. However, his stance on national security and foreign relations is naive in my opinion. I watched a debate where he says Iran isn't a threat to us. Then he stated we should bring all our forces home. Maybe Iran isn't currently a threat, but in time they can be (and it appears they are trying to be a real threat). I find it hard to believe that he had any real experience in the military although he was in the Navy. Our world presence has kept the threats at bay so much so that we've only had one attack on our homeland (9/11). Our world presence brought down the iron curtain and has made hostile nations rethink how they would approach/attack other nations if we were their allies. The most important thing to me is national security, I feel Ron Paul misses the mark when it comes to this.
http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030
At least you can listen to the ones that are fighting first before you claim that Ron Paul is wrong. Besides my brother is not wrong nor are his friends that have fought.
Wait, I'll duck when Iran launches their missles or brings them over our unprotected borders. I feel sorry that your brother had to fight in a war that Obummer was determined to make another Vietnam. I commend him for his service.
However, Ron Paul is still an enemy of America
He fought under Bush. And, why do you guys ignore the people that fought. If you truly commend them, you would grasp what they are trying to tell you. If they're the ones that are willing to do something incredible with their lives and fight for you, then why ignore them? Don't send them and then ignore them. It's no better than a liberal calling them a baby killer.
Iran is all bluster. They photocopied a small range missile so that it looked like it was going far. Everybody was trying to say that it was long range, but it turned out they only have small range. Because that's all that they can afford. They're not going to hit us anyways. It's all hype. Notice your gas price is going higher?
Either way. The guys that fought shouldn't be ignored. They know a whole lot more than us, and are a lot more trusted than the ones that sent them or still wanting to send them. But, I guess you just don't care.
Dr. Ron Paul is the only voice of reason in the presidential race. He is consistent, dependable, honest, brilliant, a modern day prophet, ethical, religious, that follows the Constitution. If you are against Ron Paul, then you are anti-Constitution, like the rest of the corrupt neocon candidates. You either accept the Constitution in its entirety or you are helping to shred it. That's an absolute. Dr. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist conservative who votes pro constition 100% of the time. If we do not return to our founding principles of liberty and freedom, we are done! This may be our last chance to get it right. RON PAUL 2012! THE DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
He is consistently wrong. He is not honest. He is a liar and has violated Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution for all the 24 lackluster years in Congress. Bringing home the bacon is what has kept this fraud in Congress for so long. Ron Paul is just a career politician. And using the term "neocon" is an insult to people who see this traitor for what he is. BTW, will he conveniently convert his unspent contributions to his own use like he did in 2008? You should google Henry Wallace, the Ron Paul of his day in the 1940's. He left the gov't in disgrace and rightfully so. Ron Paul is a clone of Henry Wallace and is a vile corrupt evil politician.
After looking closer at Rick and Newt and realizing what's left, I am moving to Ron Paul. Though I don't agree with him on some key issues, he is far less tainted than anyone left and he's focused on the constitution like no one else. Now if Ron ends up going third party I will not vote for him, but until the convention, my mind is made-up. The rest are sold out to more bureaucracy, bigger government except Newt but he's gotten too erratic for me too believe in him anymore.
Yeah! When the gingster did the global warming add with Pelosi that was the final straw! The Republican establishment
is so far from Libertarian principles that I'm afraid all is lost – Next stop – NWO
How about he said that it was a dumb thing to do and has separated himself from Global Warming. He has publicly stated, it is an unproven science. Get over it. People make mistakes. Libertarian principles are off the wall and that is why nutcase Paul has almost no support.
How about him saying it's a mistake just so as to make up for that mistake so as to run for President. The only reason it's so "off the wall" for you is because you haven't swallowed your pride and see it from a different perspective. You're only defending your personal lifestyle. The old ways that you knew are going away. You just don't want to change.
I'm sorry that you think our Constitution is "off the wall." Perhaps you should consider moving to Europe, or maybe China. They do not espouse any kind of "off the wall" principles over there.
And why are you believing Romney in regard to Gingrich? He is the only one with a clear vision to bring us back from a Marxist takeover of America. I still support Speaker Gingrich. Please don't move to that old nutjob Ron Paul. You are doing what all the other Consevative fools are doing, running to the next available politician. Ron Paul is a total lunatic. Do you really want to support someone who was responsible for 20 years or racist newsletters? Do you want to support someone who says 9/11 was our fault? Do you really want to support someone who says traitor Bradley Manning is a hero? Stop running around like a chicken with your head cut off. Ron Paul is a dangerous old whack.
Well! if Ron Paul can be considered an "intellectual"……let me off the train….He is as has been described, "your crazy ol uncle".
I think Santorum is just concerned about "radicalism" and not so muchconcerned about the Tea Party.
BS! Santorum is a big government, big spender, pro lobbyist, voted one of three most corrupt senators in 2006. He is a neocon war monger who will follow in Obama's footsteps. Ron Paul follows no on but the Constitution. And he is an intellectual, just read his books to see the intellect that he possesses. Very few insiders know how to turn this country around, and Ron Paul is the one that leads in this area. He is a modern day prophet, just see his past warnings that all came to past. Had Congress listened to him, America would not be in the mess it's in. People only repeat what the left leaning FAUX News puts out there. These neocons do this because they want a continuation of Obama policies. Ron Paul will eliminate their cash cow. No one in this country will ever get elected that is not on board with the new world order and globalization. The fact that Santorum is now being pushed by these left-leaning nepcons should be a red flag. He is one of them. Wake folks, time is running out. There is only one constitutional candidate running and that is Ron Paul!
Careful Anita, your ignorance is glaring.
The reason ( Ron Paul's foriegn policy)
He has a non-intervention foreign policy, same as our founding fathers. He believes that if our national sovereignty is threatened, then he will act to defend our country, but he does not believe that we should be interfering without congressional approval. Billions for defense and not one cent for empire building. He is the only one that understands the difference between military and defense spending and appropriations. War is a racket. The military industrial complex makes billions off defense conflicts and wars. They are the ones that really put forth foreign policies that benefit them. They finance both sides of a conflict, which in most cases they start. We replace one dictator with another. Our congress is heavily invested in defense stocks. They make millions off wars. The American people are being played like a fiddle. Get educated already and stop repeating what the MSM wants you to believe. Ron Paul has the right idea on foreign policiy! Ron Paul 2012!!!
It's amazing to me how many voters are willing to throw the Constitution under the bus, and vote based on an irrational fear and misinformation. You should look-up Ron Paul's foreign policy on his official campaign website before you make misinformed assumptions. Most people ignore the fact that we're over $15 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT and we cannot afford to police the world anymore at taxpayer expense (we currently have troops in over 135 countries around the globe). Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate seriously addressing our unsustainable national debt that is the REAL threat to Americans and our country. Balance our budget, reign in government spending, reduce the size and power of the federal government, bring American troops home to protect America, have a strong military intelligence, use the Constitution to declare war when an immediate threat arrises sounds like COMMON-SENSE FOREIGN POLICY TO ME!
Yeah, I don't know what the Tea Party people are thinking Santorum is not the one. And I'm a tea party member. Sad what we have to choose from!
Well, whose fault is that????Why didn't you all groom someone for the job???????
Jesus isn't running, so despite their faults, the system has produced the candidates we have. The key point is any one of them will be better for the country than Barack Hussein Obama. I just wish they would start talking about runaway spending, the crushing of liberty, the need for rule of "law" not of Czar-appointments, and focus on the wolf who's inside the door! The key is to remove Obama from office with a repudiating vote of the people.
As long as the despicable loiwlife power hungry Romney is around, he will continue to run attack ads. They worked on Gingrich and that is a shame. By now if not for that Speaker Gingrich would have the nomination sewed up. The destruction of the election I lay at Leftist Romney's doorstep.
It is not only Romney but the GOP elite as a whole they, they keep throwing these power hungry globalist candidates at the American people and we are not buying it anymore, they want to know why America can't get behind their candidate… because they are behind their candidate Oromney. We need less govt. and Newt is offering less govt. Perry had it right and Perry supports Newt . I support the tea party and I sure as heck won't support Santorum UNLESS him or Oromney are still standing when its done. I am NOT giving our nation over to a avowed Marxist for another 4. Word to the GOP … pull your head out before we split into a real conservative party and you will set there with your elitist attitude and no support. Just sayin!!
Those are the very things that Santorum has been talking about in stump speeches and debates – the issues – runaway spending and liberty – limited government and freedom of religion.
Santorum has talked about getting rid of the Czars, IMMEDIATELY, if he is elected president. I personally think
he is a great candidate for President of the United States, much unlike what we have now. But these articles will
come out to try and destroy a good man. Isn't that what usually happens? It's a wonder anyone wants to run for
President. The system is badly flawed, and money talks. Sad.
It was Newt who said on day 1 he would kick the czars out. Romney is a lowlife despicable pile of excrement destroying good candidates. Santorum is another RINO.
The articles not trying to destroy a good man. It's just pointing out facts.
Karen, look at Santorum's political record, now compare it to Ron Paul. He is NOT a good candidate, period. Do NOT be fooled!
Alot of you guys come up with Ron Paul is a nut thats because you cant find anything else wrong with him before you call him names look up his recored and compare the others record and see who the nuts are I get so tired of hereing you people saying he is crazy or he is a nut job we all dont feel as you do if you want to call names then call ovmit a nut job because he is one
Ole Ron Paul said he would not have gone to war against Germany. How is that for finding something wrong with him?
How about voting for the repeal of DADT, so now our unit morale and cohesion and discipline is sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. Ron Paul should know, no one has the "right" to serve in the military. Homosexuals have higher rates of HIV infection, if they get infected during military service, their treatment will be covered by the taxpayers, and during combat ops the military blood supply will be exposed to higher rates of infected blood. The red cross doesn't allow homosexuals to donate blood, and there is a real health reason behind it, not "bigotry." So there's another reason. If given the chance right now, Ron Paul would legalize marijuana use. In this way he would cooperate with liberals, without doing anything about the welfare state FIRST, so again the result would be higher costs for the taxpayer. Real Republican, Real Tea Partier, Not a Ron Pauler
Even homosexuals are taxpayers. If you deny them the ability to serve, you're stealing their tax money. So, you're only trading one moral for another.
I have an even better idea. How about taking our troops out of foreign areas that are not in the U.S. interests?
Better, yet, why don't we take down the FED so as to end the majority of taxation that is stealing from future genrations? So, we don't have to go to unecassary wars and everybody can live their lives as they see fit. But, I guess we're all wrapped up with the Establshment's choices. There's only 1 candidate that wants to end the FED, but you're all ignoring him and calling him a nutjob. You guys are no better than the libs especially the ones that keep thumbing me down and not having the stones to reply to me.
TRUTH is what you have said! they just don't know what the Truth really is and that IS too bad for us ALL.
Ron Paul foreign policy is scary, but as President I do not think he can get congress to go along with that isolationists policies.
For the most part he is a straight shooter and I like him
Only the Establishment has called him isolationist. Check the difference between that word and non-interventionist.
Ron nPaul's foreign policy (including military) is identical to that of George Washington, as expressed in his Farewell Address upon leaving office after two terms. What is that? Simple.. open trade with every nation willing, because establishing mutually profitable trade relationships guarantees peace between the trading partners. Military is to be reserved for "the common DEFENSE, and NOT for the "nationbuilding", "world's policeman", and meddling at every opportunity we can dream up, as is currently practiced. Since HALF of Federal money goes toward military, getting our man HOME from the 190 occupied foreign nations we now are entangled with shouldf go a long ways toward revising our fiscal sanity as well as "cooling off" most of the foreign ire enkindled against us. He DOES favor maintaining a strong military, but doing that HERE so as to be well able to "provide for the common defense", as per the Constitution. So, pray tell, what's wrong with THIS for a foreign policy? I think its the best one we've had since perhaps Thomas Jefferson.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only SANE policy not run by NWO cooks, James. Ron Paul's noninterventionalist approach is just that of the framers of the constitution, no more no less. The reality of his foreign policy because of his belief in free trade without ridiculous NWO trade agreements is that he is by far the LEAST isolationist of any of the candidates. You show your ridiculous ignorance by your statement on foreign policy AND even if you were correct, which you are NOT, just his being a straight shooter on ALL other issues should be enough to sway a person who has anything more than a pea for a brain. Don't get me wrong I am not ready to admit yours is any more than pea sized.
Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected. I am a Tea Party member and also admire Ron Paul on fiscal matters. Secretary of the Treasury or Fed Chair, sure, Commander in Chief, nope. He thinks waterboarding is torture and that America doesn’t have the right to assasinate foreign citizens, and that we bring terrorism upon us by our foreign interference abroad. He’s entitled to those beliefs and I as a Republican am free to disagree. As Mark Levin says, Ron Paul is an Articles of Confederation guy, not a Constitutionalist. When libertarians become so radically anti-government that they think all drugs should be legalized and government should get out of the “marriage business,” they take the Constitution in a completely different direction than what the founders intented. The founders allowed for many intrusive government restrictions on personal behavior at the local level. I was part of the first Tea Party demonstration, and while many Ron Paul supporters were there distributing material, they were NOT the organizers or founders of the movement, nor was Ron Paul. Ron Paul is right to take the Republican party in a fiscally conservative smaller government direction, and he is right that many Federal Government agencies need to be shut down. However, his supporters are wrong when they think that a man who can’t even win 51% in a Republican primary is going to magically be able to win the Presidency. They are wrong to tear down every other candidate in the race as if any of them are worse than Obama? I have gotten so many emails ripping each candidate in turn from the Paul campaign. The TX team really ripped Rick Perry, like he wouldn’t be 1,000 times better than Obama. If you really think there is no difference between Obama and Bush, you need to get checked out. I will join you in criticizing Republicans when they stray from conservatism, that’s what the Tea Party is about! But seriously, Ron Paul is not going to get elected, not because of some conspiracy, not because Republicans are all wishy washy moderate supporters, but because we have looked at all the candidates and he is not our first choice! Get your support behind one of the candidates who can win the base and who you think are the most conservative, for me it’s Santorum or Newt, lastly Romney, and yes I will vote for any of these candidates, because to fail to vote is to vote for Obama!
I do have my support around the Candidate that is viable for the job. He's the only candidate that won't violate the Rule of Law.
I don't think anyone could have stated it better or with more clarity. Yet, you have Paul supporters who are so blinded by the idea of "government getting out of the marriage business" and legalizing drugs that they can't see the forest for the trees.
Very good post. I'm behind Santorum. I'm voting my conscience and trusting God to put in who He wants. But I believe America is at a tipping point. We've been under judgment over the past four years but if we don't repent, starting with the Church, ALL of us who call ourselves Christians, we won't get the best man and we will see things get worse. Unless I feel God leading me differently, I'm sticking with Santorum. He's been the most genuine and most steady. Newt is brilliant and will be a marvelous resource. Mitt has much to offer in the area of business and finance. But I believe Santorum is the best overall.
This is extremely ignorant.
1) He's against the president unilaterally ordering the assassination of anyone. When the day comes when we're all enemies of the state for supporting the Constitution, do you want the president to have that power?
2) Terrorists are very motivated by our constant meddling in the Middle East. Bin Laden used it as a recruiting tool. To think otherwise is naive, at best. Yes, they're religiously motivated, and yes, they hate us, but both of those our fueled even more when we stick our noses in affairs that aren't our own.
3) You're right, the founders did allow for many government restrictions at the local level. But Ron Paul's position would be applied at a federal level, as per the Constitution. He has said himself that if he were a state legislator in Nevada, he would vote to outlaw prostitution. Regardless, why do you believe the government should tell people what to ingest? The same laws that are used to seize marijuana were used to seize raw milk, and someday maybe those laws will be used to seize homegrown gardens, or even Bibles. Is that what you want. And I do believe that government shouldn't be involved in marriage. If you need the government's permission to get married, there may well come a day where you won't get that permission, because you're a Christian or you believe the Bible or support the Constitution. THIS is why libertarians are so opposed to many governmental powers…not necessarily because they're fundamentally wrong, but for the potential to be abused if put in the wrong hands. George Washington warned about this very thing.
4) The original tea party movement was indeed started by Ron Paul supporters (the tea party moneybomb), and if not for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, the tea party movement would probably not exist.
5) Nobody's tearing down any candidated "as if they are worse than Obama." What many people ARE doing is pointing out that Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Perry (and others) have views that are NOT in line with the Constiution and their voting records show that they are NOT for small government and fiscal responsibility, but in fact the very opposite. Check out their voting records and see for yourself.
6) Bush radically increased the size of the Department of Education, radically increased the size and scope of Medicare, signed the overly-intrusive and overbloated TSA into existence, gave $700 billion to banks, said thatm Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and plunged us $4 trillion deeper into debt, among many other things. Obama has been much worse, but to say that Bush is THAT much better, is extremely naive. Any of the Republican candidates besides Paul would do about the same thing. A vote for anyone besides Paul is a vote for bigger government, higher spending, and less freedom.
The colonists had very little chance of beating the trained soldiers of the greatest empire in the world. But they didn't compromise their beliefs and they stood up for what was right, and did the impossible. They fought against tyranny, and I do have to say, read the Declaration of Independence, and their grievances against the government seem petty compared to ours today. If only there more Patrick Henry's today to say "Give me liberty, or give me death!" instead of so many voters who are willing to settle for much less than liberty in the name of defeating the Democratic party.
Whatever are you talking about? Paul is NOT against "government" meddling in all the things you mention.. but he IS firmly against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT usurping powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Those matters, per the Tenth Ammendment, remain with the states. Remove the FEDERAL rules on things like drugs, marriage, education, etc, let the local and state governments, resting close to THE PEOPLE, deal with those things as THE PEOPLE involved wish. The State of Texax passed an anti-sodomy law years ago, but the SCOTUS "overturned" it… saying that is FEDERAL BUSINESS, not state. Oh yeah? On WHAT basis? There IS none in the Constitution. When the FedGov tells Mr. Filburn he can't grow wheat in HIS OWN BACKYARD for his OWN FAMILY to eat, there is a serious problem. Paul sees that, and wants to get the FedGov OUT of everything except those few narrowly enumerated powers the FOUNDERS delegated it. I HATE the continual litany of Federal SWAT team raids on people like Amish dairly farmers, Winconsin cheese makers, California honey producers, licensed medical herb growers, etc. Meanwhile a half billion eggs, contaminated by a repeat rule breaker, find their way onto the public's table. LOOK at the alphabet soup agencies he wants to disband…. and what those agencies do to us. DO WE NEED THEM? Nope…. Paul's position is simple… if the Constution doesn't give the Feds the authority to deal with a given issue, then it won't. Let the states, counties, etc, do that. He never says he FAVORS the things of which you accuse him. He ONLY says put the responsibility for those things back where it belongs… with the states, or the people, NOT FedGov.
We have who we have. No true conservative can be seen in the race at this point. Some are more conservative than others. Several are fiscal conservatives, another a social conservative. None with true core conservative values governing all decision and policy stands. Any alternative to Obama is preferable and may well be necessary to preserve this country as it was founded. I think we will pull the lever marked "anyone but Obama" and in local and state races "anyone but a Democrat." It is not quite that simple, though I wish it were. Some of the "not Democrats" are in fact "goats in sheep's clothing" trapping themselves in the right speech while their support is leftist and statist. In many states for many years, you could pull one lever and vote an entire party slate of candidates. The Republican Party did not exist in most places in the South. There were a few independents here and there but no Republicans. For most of his life, my father could not vote for a Republican in state and local elections because there weren't any. It was Democrats who segregated. It was Democrats who violently opposed the civil rights movement and legislation. It was Democrats who wore white hoods and burned crosses. Now conservatives have a choice.
You do not understand conservative history, or what true conservatism is. To say that several are fiscal conservatives only demonstrates your ignorance. Only Ron Paul is an actual conservative historically speaking. Only people who have accepted neocon conservatism could possibly believe "several candidates" are fiscal conservatives. I am guessing that you are suggesting Santorum is the social conservative, which once again betrays your bias and ignorance. If you are not referring to Santorum, ignore this, but if you are, realize that forcing "conservative" social reform at the federal level is NOT true conservatism and had no p,ace in the Republic. It is actually the kind of thing the Republic was designed to defend against because who knew what would be considered "conservative" next. The truth is, what passes for conservatism today is an abberation, and the neocons are actually, historically, the "third party." I will not continue voting for the best of the worst. There actually is a true conservative running, only the people are so ignorant and historically illiterate that they don't recognize it. They prefer to continue fighting Red Blue battles endlessly, and all to elect Purple presidents.
If one loves freedom and liberty,if one has a clear consciousness, he or she can not vote based on the power of persuasion but on the truth. Riding the horse of perpetual wars, of unlimited federal government powers, under the umbrella of propaganda lies, promising protection, security, is just a way of self delusion.If a Marxist like Obama can be as we call it, commander in chief, why some of you believe that Ron Paul who served in the military can not fulfill the same duty? To be a conservative is to conserve the Constitution, not the ill received privileges by the few powerful ones who owns the media, and whose interests are not the American people interests.A good tree produces good fruits.Stick to the christian teachings and obey them, practice them, not just mention them.Christ is the Savior not just an example.
Does anyone else wonder what happened to Newt Gingrich? All of a sudden, nothing is heard from him! Has he died or is he being ignored? I can't believe that he has nothing of significance to say. He is without a doubt the most intelligent candidate in this race but to my astonishment, he has been silenced, why? Is the Republican party so afraid of him? I think if Santorum or Romney get the nomination, Obama will win in November and that will do it for America! We cannot withstand four more years of Obama!
No, they're not afraid of him. They think that if he were to win the Presidency he would lose the Senate. They think he's to volatile. They wouldn't mind having Gingrich in office; they just don't believe the man can get the job done for the Establishment. Plus, he's a clown.
No it is because the RINOS are afraid of him. He is not gone. Visit his website http://www.newt.org and you wil see what a patriotic American he is. That lowlife leftist white Obama ,Romney started his smear campaign and hurt him badly. And the only clown in the race is lowlife Progressive Ron Paul, an enemy to America. Oops I forgot the other lowlife Romney, who I understand has formed an alliance with Mittens. Now we all know why lowlife Paul has not attacked lowlife Romney. Ron Paul, just another career politicain in it for himself. He is known as Porkulus Paul for all the bacon he brings home in unconstitional earmarks.
Yes, because his website will totally change my mind. Don't get "pork" and "earmarks" mixed up. He doesn't need to go after Mittens because the people that are voting for Mitt will never vote for Paul. Paul understands that people that are voting for Gingrich and Santorum are more likely to be persuaded to vote for Paul. He knows that there could be some sort of persuasion when he talks about ending the FED, letting new currencies in the market, and liquidating the National Debt. These things Gingrich and Santorum speak nothing of because they are of the Establishment fold.
We will vote for MITT ROMNEY. He has the means to beat OBAMA. Newt is an adulterer twice on his own admission and of course a liar. Newt could not have committed adultery without lying. Can you?
Ron Paul is OK on his domestic policies, but not on his foreign policies. Maybe he could be secretary of the treasury.
Santorum is a Big spender. Big government., Part of the "good Ole boys". He wants to borrow money, raise the debt ceiling, king of porks. No right experience to create jobs. He is the poster boy of the "establishment". He is an insider. The tea psrty wanted to get rid of insiders and "the good ole boys" I am a tea partier. Santorum is a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative. Newt is far from a conservative, because of his extra-marital affairs. Callista is a spendthrift.
So MITT is the only one left standing. The only one who will not vote for him are the religious bigots who hate mormons.. We are not electing a pope or a bishop. He is a solid straight gentleman and a good family man. He is a businessman, a CEO,, non-drinker, non-smoker, non-gambler, he is a tightwad. How conseravtive can one get?
Gee, sorry to tell you Newt has admitted he led an adulterous life and is repentant of his sins. Are you Christian? Do you believe in sincere repentance? Who the hell are you to judge him on this? I have never once heard any politican admit what he did was wrong. I too am a TP'er. I will admit that many have fled to the big spender liar Santorum who is a definite loser.
There is not one TP member who supports Mittens. It has nothing to do with the cult he belongs to. It is because he is a BIG RINO. Mitt Romeny's campaign is destroying the Republican party. I would end up voting for him of by some misfortune he were to be nomiated. That is only because at least he is not a Communist like Obama. But I still think Mittens is the scum of the earth almost on par with Obummer
If Ron Paul is serious about his desire to be President, he needs to pull back on his anti-military, and pro-drug policies. If Ron Paul was a knowledgeable Christian he's know what the Bible (God's Word) says about drugs (Gr: pharmakia) as being akin to sorcery and witchcraft. It's bad enough that a sizeable percentage of Americans are already addicted to illegal non-phramaceutable drugs, but by legalizing it more Americans will feel greater liberty in getting involved in taking "legal" drugs because it will be viewed as non-threatening from a law-breaking viewpoint.
But, dude, it is not sorcery and witchcraft. People that are on drugs..well…they're on drugs. It physically atlernates their mindset not spirituality. Jesus is in control not the devil.
To be and remain in such ignorance of truth is an abomination to Biblical Christianity. You must be a libertarian to be so delusional… and I am not a Republican or Democrat!
No, you're just a charismatic-legalist.
Do you listen to Bill Johnson, Toronto Blessing, IHOP? Or, even Oral Roberts? There was somebody else. I forget…
And, when is Jesus coming back?
If you are not a Republican and you are not a Democrat, what are you? Obviously, with that attitude, not a member of the Green Party…or the libertarian Party. Are you an independent? I just curious, who in this wacky world believes smoking marijuana is an "abomination to christianity"? Please, go take YOUR form of medication and chillax.
The founding fathers used Cannibis! The war on drugs is a "boondoggle"! legalization has not resulted in increased abuse/use anywhere it's been implemented. Ron Paul lives a more "christian life" than others in this race with a mindset of aggression.
Paul does not favor legalisng drugs, he merely wants to leave that with the states, as there is NO AUTHORITY for the FedGov to deal with what we put into our bodies. Besides, marijuana has never killed anyone, but alcohol kills thousands every year, not counting those killed as a result of doing stupid things whilst intoxicated. Yet we allow booze….. regulated by the states. And taxed. It is NOT up to the FedGov to regulate what we put into our bodies at any level…. not prescriptiopn drugs, food, "recreatonal" drugs, organic, natural, raw foods.. leave that to the states, or the people per the Tenth Ammendment. Besides, take a god look at Portugal's recent experience.. by decriminalising marijuana use has dropped to about half what it was, the black market is gone, along with the associated crime and prison population. How mudh better would be be if a quarter or our present prison population were out, no one has to pay the $20-40K a year to keep them in, the DEA no longer sucks up about $60 Billion bucks a year, the border wars witih Mexico and their drug cartels would vanish, ICE could then return to dealing with real immigration issues rather than their present restricted charade over drugs, money, guns… oh, and billions would be saved in no longer having to comply with the hundreds of federal regulations on banking, money, commerce, etc, trying to find and stop money laundering… and we ALL pay the price through higher bank costs, restrictioins, etc. Let the states deal with such issues, as intended by the Framers back in the beginning.
Geez! The ignorance and stupidity of comment threads is mind boggling. Santorum is a rino, another Bush. He is not a gift from God and he will not effect any lasting change. No one, Republican or Democrat, ever has (except in increasing spending and go Ernest control). I am so tired of defending Paul's foreign policy against people who constantly demonstrate that they have no idea what it actually is and who prove time and time again that the bulk of their political wisdom comes straight from CNN or Fox News sound bites. Read a damn book. Seek to understand something honestly. No, Paul does not want us to plug our ears and pretend there are no legitimate threats to deal with. He wants to stop creating new threats by so we can deal with what we have and get ourselves out of this hole we have dug ourselves into. These are two different categories: our policy toward others and defense. Foreign policy has to do with far more than fighting one country. It includes restructuring our policies so as to avoid as many future problems as we can. It is dishonest and bearing false witness to argue that wanting to pursue a foreign policy of peace and freedom means not working – fighting – to fix our existing problems, defending ourselves, and defending our legitimate allies. Actually, Ron Paul's policy will lead to a far more powerful and effective military and defense, and keep us from going the way of Rome and the Soviet Union.
Look at Santorun's record, for crying out loud. Realize that, even if you agree with him in principle, virtually everything he has tried to do will not last or have an overall positive effect because he is trying to force it at the federal level. That is not where the vast majority of things should be changed. It's not constitutional, and it is not effective! Federal level change forces things on people by going into deeper debt and is generally changed again in four or eight years. We want local government! Make all the changes you want. If you don't like your local changes, move! Local changes are more fair, longer lasting, and constitutional. Most importantly, they allow people to reap what they sow. You don't think gays should marry? You can fight these ping pong battles for centuries, or until something is forced at gunpoint (the way it is going) or you can just give them a place to do it and let them reap what they sow. In short order – when you stop giving them your children – what they will sow will be negative growth. But no, you want to force them to do this or that at a federal level, thereby pissing more people off, instigating more opposition, and leading to more hot-issue bickering for the foreseeable future. The argument can go for or against any issue on either side.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands 1) the rule book of our country and that it is designed to avoid tyranny, 2) and that in addition to being constitutional, local government is the only effective government, and the one that leads to meaningful and lasting change and allows people to reap what they sow. That said, especially with Christians, it seems that today they are more interested and accustomed to having the government do their work for them. Hey would rather sit back, watch TV, and vote others into submission than get up, go out into the world and actually change hearts and minds. Apathy combined with the popular escapist eschatology of the day has played a huge part in putting this country where it is today. We are an unfaithful country and should not be surprised that we are reaping exactly what we have sowed and that, dare I say it, we are likely being judged for our unfaithfulness. But go ahead Christians, keep voting for warfare, fear, tyranny, unsound money and debt. Every single one of these things is unbiblical, but keep voting for them. Keep telling yourself that Santorum is from God. Keep telling yourself that Ron Paul is not really Christian enough. Vote for someone who sometimes gives powerful anti-abortion speeches during election cycles and who other times sides with the likes of Spector and others who facilitate the murder of children. Vote for the guy who wants to force changed behavior instead of working for changed hearts. Vote for the guy who will keep spending, keep controlling lives from Washington, and keep nation-building and killing. But don't complain in four years when the next guy starts forcing things on you.
Outstanding DAN!!!
You need too be with the Judge when he takes it to the people on another TV show.
Excellent write up. THANKS.
Stephen
Right on!
Ron Paul is an effing disgrace and traitor to America. He didn't write the Constitution as he would have you believe and violates Article 1 Section 8 consistenly.
GOP is just full of hacks who are STILL OUT OF TOUCH with their constituents.
If Ron Paul were to become President, he would break new ground! He would be the first President in history to turn 81 years old in his first term. On another topic, does the person in the picture at the top of this column realize that without a government there could be no country? He should also realize that, in the big picture, we are blessed with the best government ever to exist in human history, given the size and complexity of the U.S, and the complexity of the world situation. How can any government please all the people all the time when there are 310 million people, each with their individual opinions and desires, and with the freedom to express and act upon them (with a few limitations)?
Perhaps you've forgotten… The constitution begins with, "We the people". The idea of government being over the people is the concept of tyranny not liberty. If you want to actually read the constitution you will see that it's main goal is to protect the people FROM the government by defining clear limitations.
Defining liberty for any number of people is easy to do. Have NO form of government. However, defining liberty where people are accountable for what they do against other people while limiting governmental power can be very difficult. And the constitution does a very good job of doing this.
The problem is that people have forgotten that government is the one that is supposed to be limited!!! Not the people!!! The only limitation people have is not a limitation at all but is called "kindness". It is treat others with kindness and respect. This is NO limitation but is true liberty!
Can the producers of this website tolerate any Presidential candidate other than Ron Paul? Apparently not – they seem to be in lockstep with the Democratic Party in attacking any GOP candidate (other than Paul) who appears to have any chance to win.
Can you at least tolerate somebody that actually adheres to the Constitution? Apparently not – you seem to be in lock step with the liberals in attacking the Constitution and supporting candidates that will support the FED.
Ducky, Can you at least stop hitting the bong that RP sent you?
The Republican party is being played like a fiddle. When Gingrich was surging in the polls they trot out Nancy Pelosi to threaten to reveal his secrets. She knows the right thinks of her as the wicked witch of the west, so what was her goal? If you want to ambush an opponent you don't tell him where you'll be hiding. Clearly she was trying to get the Repubs to circle the wagons around Gingrich so he would get the nomination. Now with Santorum surging they contrive a war on religion knowing it will help the socially conservative candidate who has made such issues the center of his campaign. The only candidate they have attacked personally has been Mitt Romney. Do you really believe the OWS movement started because of people's outrage over the Wall Street bailouts? If so, why did it take three years to get organized? The left's goal is to make this a class warfare campaign and their hope is to make Romney's money an issue. If Republicans give in on this issue the left has won a huge victory – including a second term for Obama.
Mitt Romney is the white Obama. He is vile evil and power hungry. Pelosi and her inane comments had nothing to do with hurting Gingrich; It was scum, lowlife leftist Romney that did that with his evil lies, distortions and edited videos.If you want to see the country move back to the Constitution, the Gingrich is the man to do this. Santorum is a fraud and a big gov't RINO. Check out his voting record and how he adored Romey in 2008.
As far as being moral goes, you ought to read what the Bible teaches about judging. You don't know Mitt Romney's soul.
Shame on you, if you call yourself a Christian!
Santorum is a career politician. He is a government insider. He is socially conservative, but not financially conservative. What are the biggest problems our country is facing? Huge deficit spending and high unemployment. How do you elect a candidate who has no experience in job creation, who has been part of the spending problem, and think you're going to solve any problems?
WAKE UP REPUBLICANS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
Ron Paul supporter: I am voting for Ron Paul because he's the only one that will…
- End the FED. To seek justice for what has been stolen.
- Allow other currencies to come into the market to create competition against the FED. This will also, eleviate the burden of the spending tax, or inflation, that is being put onto future generations.
- Protect our troops as demonstrated by his son, Senator Rand Paul. He will keep us out of foreign affairs that will bring unnecessary harm to our troops and future entanglements.
- Be wise with the taxpayers money. He is fiscally conservative.
- Expand and protect our freedoms so as to be self-reliant and depend on only family and God.
- Overturn Roe v. Wade without violating the 10th Amendment. Therfore, respecting the Constitution and life at the same time.
- End certain bureaucracies bringing to an end to most regulations. This will ease the burden to compete including startups and small companies that are hindered by bigger companies.
- End the War on Drugs so as to bring to an end to the lobbying of criminlizing the average person. To save money. This will put the burden of responsibilty on the individual as it should be.
- Attempt to reduce the National Debt by all means possible. If the National Debt does not get solved, there will be no issue to tend to.
- Preside over the Oval Office with integrity and principle. He does not use Jesus' name in vain for self gain. His record reflects this.
Establishment supporters (Santorum, Gingrich, Romney):
The way I'm going to vote is this… (Santorum/Gingrich)
- Because I don't like Romney. But, I will support him if he goes up against Obama. Anybody but Obama.
- Ron Paul? He's a nutjob. His foreign policy is insane. The Constitution allows us to defend our freedoms before anybody can harm us.
- And, he wants to legalize drugs. People will get all drugged up and hurt people. …what? Yeah, I believe in legalizing guns.
- The troops supporting Ron Paul? No. That's just a lie. I don't care if he has an artificial leg; he's a liar.
- Yeah, Santorum/Gingrich will end abortion because they said so. Like Bush said so. We need to do it through the Federal level because the Declaration of Independence has the saying of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.
- Principle. Yeah, we all made mistakes. But, Gingrich/Santorum got duped into it.
- Santorum/Gingrich will have government protect us and our rights so that we can live independently and without fear of getting shot at by some government official.
- We only need to fear laws like the NDAA when Obama is in. That's why we need him out. The NDAA will allow Gingrich/Santorum to go after the bad guys just as the President took the oath to protect America foreign and domestic.
- National Debt can be reduced if we simply get Obama out. What…? No, it wasn't past Presidents. It's Obama and his past four years..I mean three. It's all within that three years time.
Romney supporter:
I will vote for Romney because he's the only guy that can beat Obama. Wha? No, I know he'll have to ask his lawyers how to run the country, but it'll be better than having Obama running the show. And, Ron Paul is a nutjob…because he is.
Obama supporter:
I'm voting for Obama because he's black and it would be racist not to.
You won't get to vote for Ron Paul because he will not be the nominee. If you do a write in , you will just be voting for Obummer.
Well, that's one way to stand up for your beliefs. Sometimes standing up for your beliefs means you're going to lose. If you go with whoever looks like is going to be the winner, then, what kind of principles do you have? Really, you just end up losing because you just got used for somebody else's gain.
The people that keep bad mouthing Ron Paul need to get there facts straight and their state vs federal government straight. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. There are things the federal government can do and those powers are few. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. The states have many. 10th amendment. Ron Paul wants to get the federal government out of the businesses it does not belong. Like the drug business, the education business, the home building business, the marriage business, the abortion business and everything else not authorized by the constitution. The states can take up these businesses if they so choose but the Feds have no authorization to be in these businesses. Most of the misunderstanding with Ron Paul just need a little research to see that he is right on all of them no matter how you may “feel” about them.
Obviously, you have not done enough research on the traitor Ron Paul.
Rick Santorum is the only true conservative in this race. No one is perfect, obviously, and until Christ returns we will not have a perfect government, but Santorum is the best GOP possibility.
Romney is a fake, and cannot be trusted about key issues such as abortion. Gingrich has some definite flaws, such as supporting the individual mandate. Ron Paul, while having excellent fiscal stances, has a very bad foreign policy, said that he supports the rape exception to abortion, and will ruin our nation by supporting the homosexuals. But Rick Santorum, while not perfect as I said, is clearly pro life and pro family.
People call Santorum "big government"; ridiculous! Our nation will fall into the anarchy that comes from evil, unless we outlaw abortion! This is the most important issue, and overshadows EVERYTHING else!
Folks, Rick Santorum needs our help. If we vote for Gingrich, Romney, or Paul, we cannot get our nation back on its feet! We have to vote for him! Don't squabble over issues that don't matter!
ABORTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE! FAMILY IS THE NEXT IMPORTANT ISSUE! SANTORUM IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO WE CAN TRUST!
WAKE UP REPUBLICANS!
Nah, can't trust somebody that knowingly lies.
These statements on Rick Santorium are a lie he did not vote for the No Child Left Behind Act, or bridge to nowhere” highway bill,
What this country needs is less government and more Jesus. So let’s kill all the politicians and declare Jesus King of America. Then we can clean out the grime, the black, black grime, once and for all.
As a Christian. What you said is not Christian but is against the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus taught that we are all full of sin and worthy of death because of how bad we truly are. That we do not understand how bad we really are because we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that we are "good enough". Jesus was simply being honest, and in spite of how bad we are He still loves us.
Jesus loves us so much that he planned for the people to murder Him so that He could love them even more to save them from their evil ways and make them clean. He took the punishment, He willingly laid down his own life so we could live in His place. Since He rose from the dead, He has the power to raise us from the dead and give us new life.
Christianity that follows Jesus is self sacrificial. People that murder in the name of Jesus are no followers of Jesus. True Christian martyrs have been burned, eaten, beaten, and crucified to death because they would not deny the name of Jesus.
"Fear the One who can destroy the soul, not who can kill the body!"
yeah he does that all the time. he's playing around.
Ron Paul tells us that he has seen the baby (4000 or births), but it’s OK for the states to decide if they want to kill the baby. Can a state decide to decriminalize murder? No, they can’t; because God, first, has given us the right to life and the constitution kinda protects it. I debated a gentleman two days ago that thought Ron Paul was a genius for his approach to the abortion issue. He said, the states can do it faster and more efficient than it can be done at the federal level (the constitution); he thought Ron Paul had found a loophole. That was his conclusion. Our debate ended when I reminded him that the states attempted to abolish slavery but it was Lincoln’s executive order (federal) and the 13th amendment (federal) in 1856 that did the job. The states started it and tried, but the war against inhumane treatment of blacks (supported by many Christians by the way) was made right at the federal level. A man that says “I am against owning blacks as slaves” doesn’t turn around and grant the states the right to choose black ownership. Nor does a man, that has delivered 4000 babies, affirm that they are human, grant states the right to decide if they as a community want to allow murder under the guise of freedom. THAT IS NOT FREEDOM; THAT IS PERVERSION!
When pot heads, the Bunny whores of Nevada (whatever they are called), and pro-aborts, are adopting the same strategy as Christians, that is a problem.
DO NOT DO GOOD THAT EVIL MAY COME OF IT! It is one thing to achieve victory incrementally and quite another to sin incrementally that good may come of it. There are many Christians that have swerved off the path of choosing what is right. When a fiscal conservative is chosen over a 100% pro-life candidate, your decisions are warped. There is a hierarchy of right and wrong. Some wrongs are greater than others (the all sins are equal scam has crippled Christian thought) and permitting the murder of children, as a form of freedom, is the greater of the wrongs. Christians do not have the liberty to choose the importance of economics over the sanctity of life.
Let me say unequivocally that Ron Paul IS NOT conservative. Voddie Baucham (who I think is top notch) recently white washed Ron Paul in an article that I think appeared right here.He spoke of Ron Paul and his commitment to Christ and how he “does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life”. I too think it is great when a person can be Christian without bringing ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But, we cannot set aside biblical principles in our public/political life; but that is exactly what Ron Paul does. He has duped good Christians.
Ron Paul is a confused Christian and so is anyone advocating his compromises in the name of freedom. Freedom is not sin.
PM
Murder IS a state issue. Yes, a state CAN decriminalize murder. According to some people, some states have already done so (use of lethal force in self-defense, having the death penalty). A federal government that can declare that abortion is murder is a federal government that can punish self-defense as if it were murder. No thanks.
Let the states police themselves.
A state CANNOT decriminalize murder. The constitution PROTECTS citizens from states that would desire to decriminalize murder. The constitution not only limits federal government, it also puts boundaries on what a state can do. A state CANNOT choose to own black American as slaves. Why? Because the constitution PROHIBITS it. A state CANNOT choose to decriminalize murder any more than it can choose to re-institute black American slave ownership. You are mistaken sir.
Yes, the Civil War ended slavery. Look how well that turned out. Jim Crow laws, segregation, resentment towards the other colored skin. The Civil War could've been averted if the government bought the slaves and set them free. Then, again, the Civil War wasn't solely about the slaves so it couldn't have been averted. You said that the States were trying but failing to end slavery on their own. That's funny because what were the Northern States so famous for doing? The government could have bought and set them free without having to buy new slaves as they came in. The Southern States were ending the slave trade. They were grandfathering out slavery.
What you brought up is a great example of what is really going on with the abortion issue. That is, distract the Christian right on a major and sensitive issue while the alternate motive is being accomplished. Just as the government motivated the Christian people to support the war for the cause of slavery so as to get more support to take down the South, the same is going on with abortion. When you put the abortion issue at the Federal level, you're allowing politicians to expand bigger government. When you have interpretations of the law that state that life is to be protected by the Federal government you're allowing Pandora's Box to open for intrusive laws. Such as the NDAA. When you support a politician that declares that he will end abortion at the Federal level, it's an indication that he is for big-government, and most likely he wont do anything about abortion. Look at the previous office holders. We've had some of the staunches of talk about ending abortion at the Federal level by Presidential candidates, but once in office little to no change was made. Pretty much they'll just use this issue to get themselves elected.
There's a myth that the Supreme Court's decision was end all be all of that law. If you read the opinion of the court, it does not say that States cannot outlaw abortion. Also, the court left a premise that if a State can provide evidence and facts that the baby in the womb is in fact a baby, the woman's argument collapses. Individual States are making an effort more so than the Federal government has ever had. The fight has really ought to be in the States where the enemy is weaker, and not at the Federal level where the enemy is stronger. Yet, the longer pro-lifers take the fight to the Federal level; the more they fuel the fire to keep abortion going because it's just not realistic that the law to change at the Federal level.
"Do not do good that evil may come of it." This could be applied to you, sir. Nowhere does it say that abortion should be legal in the Constitution nor does it say that the unborn should be protected. This is a 10th Amendment issue. Only States have the right to conduct murder and violent crimes. God is not just concerned for life. He is, also, concerned with the Rule of Law and how it is conducted. Is it wise to violate one law to fit what you perceive as justice? What about Lamech – was it right for him to violate a law to fit his perspective of justice? When you do such a thing, you're only exchanging one moral for another, yet you've gained nothing from it.
Let me say unequivocally Ron Paul is a conservative, and Voddie Baucham did not white wash anything. He is a well educated man that does his homework. He was gentle in explaining why he votes for Ron Paul. You take pride in debating what seems to have been a young man that may or may not have been prepared to defend everything that he stood for. No, sir we are not duped. You sir have been duped and being used by the big-government advocates to violate not only our freedoms but the Rule of Law. Yet, you have gained nothing in your exchange of morals. Babies are still dying. You were so distracted at compromising the Rule of Law that you didn't even notice that States can still ban abortions. Yes, it's a fight to get States to ban it, but everything about God's work is a fight. There are no easy avenues especially the avenue where the enemy is the strongest. But, let's be wise about how fight for the unborn.
This goes beyond abortions. Every time the government gets bigger in anyway. Our freedoms are hindered. This always for some reason goes against the Church. There is a big vacuum for people to cling onto. It's usually government or Jesus. The bigger the government the less people want of Jesus and vice versa. So, if you reduce the size of government and if the Church is willing to fill in the void, Jesus will become once again Savior and Lord of this country.
Plus, I do not want the moral police to tell me what I can or cannot do. I can't even live up to my own standards. This is why I need forgiveness. Jesus will forgive, but will the government? How can we trust the government with morals when they, themselves, are immoral? So, I say less laws the better. Let's not compromise what God has given to us. Let's not compromise our Freedoms.
but once in office little to no change was made. Pretty much they'll just use this issue to get themselves elected.
And shame on them for doing so. That is still irrelevant. If a person says they are going to do something, it is reasonable to accept them at their word.
“it's just not realistic that the law to change at the Federal level.” That’s what they said about slavery too. It is not realistic as long as decent people (like yourself) think it is unrealistic. We support life regardless.
“nor does it say that the unborn should be protected” ARE YOU CRAZY!!!!! THE BABY IS A HUMAN BEING!!!!! ALREADY PROTECTED BY THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS
”God is not just concerned for life. He is, also, concerned with the Rule of Law and how it is conducted”
God despises a rule of law that permits the murder of human beings.
"And shame on them for doing so. That is still irrelevant. If a person says they are going to do something, it is reasonable to accept them at their word." Are you serious? Is that really how you think the world works?
Slavery. Did you not read what I wrote? Whenever the Federal government gets involved by using force, freedoms get hindered and people suffer for it. It's not realistic, especially, on this issue because the enemy is too strong on the Federal level.
Without yelling. Show me where it says that life is to be protected by the Federal government in the Constitution? It is our freedoms that are to be protected, and the States are to conduct murder trials. You would be better off to look up your own State Constitution. Besides I don't want the Federal government to protect "all human beings". Ever heard of the phrase, "Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"?
Again you need to understand what people are saying. The Roe v. Wade decision did not ban States from banning abortions. So, there is no rule of law that states that abortion can be legal. It's just been accepted culturally while the Church has been distracted with the Federal government. Again, how can you violate one law to fit what you see as justice? Do you even know where the name Lamech comes from?
Are you serious? Is that really how you think the world works?
How things work? No, its not how things work often. But, if someone makes a pledge to address something we have to decide if they are being truthful or not. Absent serious contrary allegations, yes, it is reasonable to accept someone at their word. Now we may also consider their past (Santorum) and judge whether or not enough time has passed to warrant accepting their modified positions (big government charge against Santorum).
Slavery. Did you not read what I wrote? Whenever the Federal government gets involved by using force, freedoms get hindered and people suffer for it. It's not realistic, especially, on this issue because the enemy is too strong on the Federal level.
That is a defeatist attitude. The enemy is never too strong. We fail because WE compromise and fail to honor God instead of men. Constitution or God? America is not a theocracy, but Christians have not been granted authority from God to discard His principles and His standard of right and wrong. It is OK to be poor, to have an economically depraved country. But it is NEVER OK to permit the killing of any human life through the establishment of law.
“Show me where it says that life is to be protected by the Federal government in the Constitution?”
5th and 14th amendments. For the lost understanding of how the constitution was understood (until modern day Christians skewed it) see McArthur v. Scott, Weber v. Aetna, Union Pacific Railway v. Botford, and also http://www.humanlife.org/publications/sacnac.pdf
If and only if the unborn is a human being (and they are) they should be protected by the constitution. Not because the constitution or the federal government is the “protector of life” but because the constitution demands that all states honor what the constitution recognizes as already existing, inalienable rights; not from the government by from our creator. The federal government does not need to protect anything; the states are where prosecution takes place. I understand that. But, the federal government needs to start guaranteeing compliance with the U.S. constitution, it does have that authority. That includes the states. If a state is denying life, liberty, and property then the federal government has not only the constitutional right but obligation to intervene on behalf of the citizen. Does my state, Indiana, have the right to make a law that says it is OK for police to perform unreasonable searches? No, it does not. And if it did, as a citizen of the U.S., I may rightly appeal to the federal government and its constitutional authority to prevent Indiana from authorizing police unreasonable search doctrine through legislative authority. The same is true with abortion. Abortion should be addressed at all levels. I
I am aware of Lamech if you are referring to Genesis 4. Otherwise no.
Again you need to understand what people are saying. The Roe v. Wade decision did not ban States from banning abortions. So, there is no rule of law that states that abortion can be legal.
I fully understand. A rule of law is not needed to affirm something can be done. But when the federal government, the enforcers of the constitution see a freedom being violated it is their job to protect that freedom.
“how can you violate one law to fit what you see as justice?”
Please explain. Because yes, we may violate some laws in order to honor other laws. It is a case by case application.
Correction: We fail because WE compromise and fail to honor God, instead we honor men.
March 17, 2005 S Amdt 214 Prescription Drugs Amendment Amendment Rejected – Senate
(49 – 50) Nay
This is his vote on the prescription drug bill he voted no! so thats another lie
The people have forgotten… The constitution begins with, "We the people". The idea of government being over the people is the concept of tyranny not liberty. If you want to actually read the constitution you will see that it's main goal is to protect the people FROM the government by defining clear limitations.
Defining liberty for any number of people is easy to do. Have NO form of government. However, defining liberty where people are accountable for what they do against other people while limiting governmental power can be very difficult. And the constitution does a very good job of doing this.
The problem is that people have forgotten that government is the one that is supposed to be limited!!! Not the people!!! The only limitation people have is not a limitation at all but is called "kindness". It is treat others with kindness and respect. This is NO limitation but is true liberty!
Why is Ron Paul the only person that unsedtands this or will stand up for this!
I have noticed that when Romney was ahead and Paul was ahead and Gingrich was ahead no one said a single word bad about Santorum. Now that he and Romney are neck and neck in this race suddenly all kinds of negative things are popping up about Santorum.
Here is what I think, people know that Santorum is a man of his word and he is starting to scare the bejesus out of the Romney supporters and they have to do something to keep Romney in the limelight.
My money is on Santorum but should Santorum drop out, which I don't think he will, I wll support what ever Republican is left EXCEPT FOR RON PAUL.