Posted on 06/07/2010 3:01:29 PM PDT by RaceBannon
Associated Press
AP Political Writer
June 7, 2010
HARTFORD, Conn.
Connecticut elections officials are investigating whether Weston businessman Peter Schiff violated state laws by using out-of-state workers to collect signatures to petition his way onto the Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate.
In a complain obtained Monday by The Associated Press, James Bancroft, who said he was a founding member of the Hartford tea party group, claimed he was approached by a Schiff supporter outside a store in Newington last week and asked to sign a petition. Bancroft said he struck up a conversation with the worker, who said he was from Montana. Bancroft filed the complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
thanks for showing up and getting testy with those more wisened than your shallow as a dry creek intellect.
You use your testyness to make friends much?
How’s it working, nOOb?
Lighten up Francis and say something of substantive opposition, that has value that can be weighed.
Or just sit it out, lest we discover you are drunk or on heavy medication.
Thank you for standing up for what is right, even when it's not an easy thing to do.
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of “non-interference.” However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of “social liberalism” simultaneously with “fiscal conservatism;” but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
-— Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? “Give us bread and circuses!”
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nation’s economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
thank you.
that is ONE GREAT POST!!!!!
“Go on youtube and watch his clips on economics and you will understand why he has such a huge following.”
Ok I will. I don’t doubt Schiff has good ideas on fiscal economy. Sadly, though, for every good thing coming from a Ron Paul type there is something else I don’t like.
“It is amazing how some could call someone who is ok with the murder of innocent human life a leader of a liberty movement.”
FWIW, it doesn’t sound to me like Mr. Schiff has given the issue much introspective thought. Like many “one issue” candidates, his thinking isn’t straying much from his expertise, i.e. economics. Problem is, he’s running for Senate, not lead economist.
To his defense, though, this is a very, very smart individual. If he ever actually thinks about the issue in any depth, he might pleasantly surprise us.
While infanticide is a hot button topic for me on it’s own merits, I’ve seen that it also gives a very good snapshot view of how a person relates to the world in general from a moral perspective. If you’re not able to take what is really a very easy moral stance in saying that innocent life must be defended, how can you expect the person to take a difficult moral stance when the right and wrong answers are not so clear?
Schiff is going for the Senate, not the damn presidency. There are 99 others there and he would at least add a voice of fiscal sanity that is sorely lacking from all sides.
Other than Gregg or Demint, the GOP is mostly useless and someone like Schiff would be good to bring a voice of reason to the most pressing issue right now our economy.
And those screaming about national security need to understand that we can have national security with a horrible economy.
Then the GOP should have supported the only conservative in the race, Vinny Forras, eh?
Why are libertarians so against Conservatives and promote gay marriage, gay rights, drug legalization?
I’m not for those things and you know that Schiff’s main appeal is not the gay nonsense. Plus, his vote would not be a game change since he would be replacing a lib.
Look, we need some real deal economic sense in DC, that is sorely lacking.
I dont know much about the Forras guy, but have been watching Schiff’s videosa for a few years and the guy called the current mess to the tee, well before anyone else.
You’re a Paulbot aren’t you. As Helen Thonas said you can go back to RonPaul forums or where ever you came from. You’re not even from CT.
So what? Schiff is not alone in calling for future economic collapse
and as for replacing a lib...why replace a lib with a lib???
Good Grief!!
Good lord, what is your obsession with homosexuals?
a group of us in CT use the following criteria when supporting candidates:
1. Must be a genuine conservative and
2. Must have a legitimate chance to be elected and
3. Must run a campaign that is reasonably competent.
Schiff fails on 2 & 3. It’s debatable whether he fails #1.
It could be argued that no GOP candidate for Senate meets the above criteria. So long ago, we moved on ... to races for state Senate, state rep., etc.
The biggest problem we run into is criteria number 3. It is hard to work with a candidate who insists on running a half-ass campaign. Many of them now are refusing to do much, “get back to us in August ...”
Mr. Bumble on hearing the law supposed he was in charge of his wife:
“If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that’s the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law ...”
You remind me of the sort of person that reported me for having cracks in my sidewalk when me and my wife got laid off within weeks of each other.
we knew the carpet baggers and looneys would crawl from under rocks to glom onto the tea party movement.
Excellent post! Thank you.
That is against Connecticut Law.
Did not know that. Interesting. I guess that one could argue "what difference does it make if the collector of signatures is not a state resident", if the actual signer is?
But if it's illegal its illeagal and those signatures collected by those individuals should be disqualified.
Now, not knowing anything about CT politics, if Schiff is out by not qualifying signatures, who's left to replace him on the ballot, and is the replacement better or worse than Schiff would have been?
Post of the Day!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.