Mitt Romney holds fundraiser with manufacturer of the Morning After Pill

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Ben Johnson

[EternalVigilance]

MIAMI, FLORIDA – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

[BlackElk]

Where does your toater (toaster?) stand on saving the babies, blocking any and all attempts to normalize rump ranging and other perversions as "marriage," on the freedom of firearms to be owned by any and all citizens, kept and borne as the Founders intended, on establishing and maintaining and using a "kick ass" foreign policy exerted by a beefed up US military, and the verrrry important priority of purging the money changers from the GOP along with the shapeshifters and the etch-a-sketchers, and where does he/she/it stand on persecuting the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong? Romney has already done that and Obozo is (literally?) hell bent on joining him in persecuting the Roman Catholic Church. No Catholic worthy of the name would vote for Caligula, Nero, Diocletian, Obozo or the Massachusetts slimebag and for that very reason.

That's an interesting but false theology of sin that you express and which makes it understandable that, as a Christian with such a theology, you feel comfortable voting for one AntiChrist over the other because, after all, YOUR Antichrist is a smidgeon better than THEIR Antichrist. I am a Roman Catholic and I don't posture as a Scriptural scholar. Nor should you.

Catholics do not share and never have shared the notion that if you've seen one sin you've seen 'em all. That theory would put Moses in hell for tapping that rock twice, Peter in hell for lopping off the servant's ear through excess enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, Paul in hell for murdering St. Stephen for the Sanhedrin, ad so forth.

I suspect that there are many in reformed churches who share your notion but will not give Romney a free pass to persecute Catholicism or other churches of orthodox traditional morality, kill babies, cheerlead "gay" everything, etc. Plenty of Catholics too, and Orthodox Jews, and Orthodox Christians and a lot of other folks, believer`s and non-believers. See the upcoming movie "For the Greater Glory" in which Andy Garcia plays an atheist general of the Cristero armies of Mexicans who waged revolution against the communist Mexican government that regularly martyred Catholics and their priests. It is said that the movie is meant to be the Mexican Braveheart. It also feature Peter O'Toole as a martyred priest and Eva Longoria as (I believe) the general's wife.

The general was married to a Catholic woman but led the Catholic armies because he believed in religious freedom and proudly bore the slogan (Viva Cristo Rey! or Long Live Christ the King!). Now, I don't doubt that Tom Hoefling and I would have a difference or two on theology but I don't think he would have hesitated for a second, if he had lived in 1920s Mexico, to become a Reformed Cristero. I would have had his back and he mine. I don't think you would have done that. You would have been too busy making nuanced calculations as to which servant of Lucifer in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) might be less likely to raise your taxes or regulate your business or whatever as Calles' putative successor. Maybe you would accept special deals from Calles and/or Obregon to be a government stoolpigeon and sell out the martyrs. Above all, we must sell our souls to practicality and phony pragmatism, right? How about: Shoot 'em all! Dismember their putrid corpses and piss on their graves (a little Irish touch there!). Viva Cristo Rey!

I will NOT vote for Obozo. Nor will I vote for Romney. For precisely the same reasons. For 44 years of POTUS elections, I have voted GOP. They want my vote from now on? They'll have to EARN it. If you are disappointed, toooo bad because that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Since your toater (toaster?) is neither Obozo nor the Massachusetts serial liar, baby-killer, marriage destroyer, gun grabber, etc., then your toater (toaster?) deserves at least a tentative hearing. As you seem to acknowledge, however, Tom Hoefling has set a very High Standard for your Toater (toaster?) to exceed. Toater or no toater, I expect to vote for Tom Hoefling as my brother in Christ. Sorry about you!

[Theophilus]

Once elected Romney will change his name to President Abe Ortion.

[EternalVigilance]

Right. Although, we didn’t choose Uncle Joe to lead America.

[arderkrag]

Let's see if we can find any more of them not willing to let the country come down in shambles around their ears.

ROFL - IF that were the case, voting for Romeny wouldn't actually change any of that, or even slow it down significantly. Romeny and Obama both want to drive off the cliff, you're just choosing whether to go over in a Corvette ZR1 or a Mustang Shelby.

[arderkrag]

Probably, if history teaches us anything. Some trolls just get a kick out of coming back ad nauseaum.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[TheOldLady]

Indeed they do.

[wagglebee]

There’s more chance of JimRob becoming Romney’s campaign manager than there is of convincing a majority of the US population that a fertilized egg is a person.

So troll, what EXACTLY do you think a fertilized human egg is going to grow up to be if not a person? Do you think it might turn into a giraffe?

More than one billion PERSONS have been murdered in the past century because evil monsters like you think its acceptable to define persons as "nonpersons."

80% of fertilized eggs/embryos fail to implant naturally (without the mother ever knowing) What exactly is the point of God killing so many “persons” that way?

100% of persons eventually die no matter what, do you think God considers them "nonpersons"?

[Colofornian]

Another "zot me" beggar has his wish fulfilled by The Man Himself - and we'll zot his retread too ZOT

Yup.

And when you click on that posting history link you have of FORMER Fringe Freeper Markusprime, you'll see he wasn't a frequent poster until March.

He was a fringer to begin with....and by his posts, was a "predestined" zot

[Colofornian]

I understand wanting to vote for a "sinless" man, but such hasn't esxisted for over 2,000 years.

Well, I guess Trebb, you're not very well "read up" on Mormonism. You see, per Mormon doctrine, Mitt Romney is ALREADY a "god in embryo" -- on his way to full-grown godhood. (And the Mormon gods only let perfectos become full-grown "gods")

Want the evidence? See for yourself:

Many people know of Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th "prophet" of the Lds church (1973-1985), as the man who allowed blacks to become Mormon priests in 1978.

But did you know Mormonism teaches you are all "gods in embryo"??? (And Kimball was one of its key proponents)

Did you know that Mormonism teaches the false "gospel" of self-transformation -- of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to become a god? (And Kimball was one of its key proponents)

Spencer W. Kimball on these very topics:

1969 "Being a GOD IN EMBRYO with the seeds of godhood neatly tucked away in him, and with the power to become a god eventually, man need not despair...he must...transform himself..." (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 173-174)

A couple he was advising in Kimball's office "did not understand that forgiveness is not a thing of days or months or even years but is a matter of intensity of feeling and transformation of self...This couple seemed to have no conception of satisfying the Lord, of paying the total penalties and obtaining a release..." (Ibid, p. 156)

To Kimball, you had to "pay the total penalties" for your sin -- vs. that being a role occupied by the true Jesus Christ.

September, 1974: Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility. Source: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6057 (Spencer W. Kimball speech entitled Be Ye Therefore Perfect 9/17/74 devotional address @ BYU)

1975: Man is created in the image of God. He is a GOD IN EMBRYO. He has the seeds of godhood within him, and he can, if he is normal, pick himself up by his bootstraps and literally move himself from where he is to where he shows he should be." Source: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/LovevsLust.pdf, "Love vs. Lust," Spencer W. Kimball, Provo: BYU Publications, 1975

November 1977: Self-mastery, then, is the key, and every person should study his own life, his own desires and wants and cravings, and bring them under control. Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility. To be perfect, one can turn to many areas as a starting place....As we have stated before, the way to perfection seems to be a changing of one’s life—to substitute the good for the evil in every case. Source: By President Spencer W. Kimball An address given to students of Weber State College, Ogden, Utah on 4 November 1977 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=244ed0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

July, 1978 Ensign Magazine: Lds church officially endorses Kimball Weber State College comments by publishing them in their official magazine

This quote also becomes part of Chapter 19 of what Lds officially teach college students in their Institute curricula: See http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-11-20-19.asp

[Colofornian]

I understand wanting to vote for a "sinless" man, but such hasn't esxisted for over 2,000 years.

So given the evidence of Mormons-believe-Romney's-a-god-in-embryo (evidence in last post)...

The issue isn't which sinless MAN to vote for...
...Rather, it's which candidate who isn't an idol that elevates idolatry shouldn't we vote for...

Since for many Dems, they can conceive of no greater power than either the POTUS or Supreme Court, for many of them, Obama (& all future Dem POTUS candidates & Supreme Court justices) become their functional "Messiahs."

Therefore, I choose to vote for neither...
...a functional "Messiah" (Obama or future Dem POTUS candidates)
...OR the idol, Mitt Romney...

Why buy into an open idolatrous tie-in with your vote?

[Psalm 144]

That took longer than I expected.

MARKPASTSELLBYDATE

[trebb]

Catholics do not share and never have shared the notion that if you've seen one sin you've seen 'em all. That theory would put Moses in hell for tapping that rock twice, Peter in hell for lopping off the servant's ear through excess enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, Paul in hell for murdering St. Stephen for the Sanhedrin, ad so forth.

You obviously "have fallen from Grace" if you cannot delineate the difference that God made when he separated the Old Covenant from the New Covenant. King David committed an atrocity against Uriah and his son died for it - yet it says that David died sinless. When Jesus walked the Earth, we were still under the Old Covenant and He adhered to it. Once He died and arose, the New Covenant came into force. When a person admits his human weakness and inability to live outside of sin, and askes Jesus into his heart as the Savior Who Died for him, that person becomes sinless and a saint in God's eyes, even though he continues act sinfully. The message of the Old testament was that men could not become justified through their own power and volition. Men asked for a set of rules to prove they could and God gave them the Commandments to prove they couldn't. Jesus told us (under the Old Covenant, that if a man even thought about committing adultry, he may as well have committed the act. A saved Paul lamented that he continued to do that whcih he would not do, and did not do that which he would - he agonized over his inability to live without committing sinful acts and to do the good things he knew he should do. The phrase "The poor in spirit shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven is a reference that indicates, once saved, and realizing your weakness and inability to live without sinful acts, your understanding and regret were looked upon favorably because it is what He was trying to teach us. You consider Baptism a rite that actually washes sin away and the Bible doesn't say that. Baptism is a public display of your fealty to Jesus - like wearing a wedding ring. Catholics think that Baptism protects a baby from Hell until such time as the child is old enough to express the need for Jesus in his heart through Confirmation. It is not harmful, but it is also not necessary. Else, no-one could be saved without a Catholic Priest (whom you refer to as "Father" despite Jesus' admoinishment not to do because you have but one Father and He is in Heaven. You don't need priests and rites to be saved - you need to know the Good News of the Bible and to accept that Jesus paid for your sins. ALL sin was death-penalty serious. Breaking the Commandment of not stealing was as serious as that of not murdering. I'm no Scriptual scholar either, but I do understand the difference between Old and New Covenants and what it means to live under the New. Use the Bible, in context, to refute one thing I have said and then you can lecture me on being a Christian.

God Bless and ease your angry heart.

[trebb]

Well, I guess Trebb, you're not very well "read up" on Mormonism. You see, per Mormon doctrine, Mitt Romney is ALREADY a "god in embryo" -- on his way to full-grown godhood. (And the Mormon gods only let perfectos become full-grown "gods")

And I should base my thought procees totally on Mormonism? I'm a Christian and picked non-denomination because religions ALL distort the Bible for whatever purpose (it would seem that, like the Pharisees, modern day priests and such still need to have a leg up on the Laity). Men are weak, yet we use them to serve whatever purpose while on this earth.

When tearing down Romney for all his failure, what do you make of what Obama has already done, the utter disdain for the law and the Constitution, the crippling financial policies, and oh yeah "...I need more space until after my election; then I'll have..you know..more flexibility..."?

Religion is a distraction - even those who profess to follow Biblical Christianity seem unaware of what it's really about and do not follow the "rules", yet they consider themselves above all others. I'm willing to let God sort it out because I know my nature and understand that it took His sacrifice to make me worthy despite myself. Right now I'm more concerned with the toxicity of the WH on our Nation.

[trebb]

The issue isn't which sinless MAN to vote for... ...Rather, it's which candidate who isn't an idol that elevates idolatry shouldn't we vote for...
Therefore, I choose to vote for neither... ...a functional "Messiah" (Obama or future Dem POTUS candidates) ...OR the idol, Mitt Romney...

There you go - how difficult was it? We already know Satan runs unopposed on the earth, so the only reason to make any choice is for earthly things. If earthly things don't have any sway on how you live your life, one may question why you even care about politics. Politics requires a choice between opposing parties. If you cannot choose one over the other, and consider neither to be your choice, why bother reading or posting about it at all?

[Norm Lenhart]

The entire insanity that brought this situation on can be resolved with three simple questions if honestly and logic are applied:

1: Do you think that voting for someone with a liberal record is a conservative action?

2: Are conservative values advanced and the country helped when conservatives vote for candidates whose values and actions are contrary to their own?

3: Do you suppose that by voting against what you believe in that you will get what you believe in?

It’s that simple. Unfortunately the Fell Plague of Stupidicus runs rampant. I have given up TOL. That which calls itself “Conservativism” in the modern era is too stupid to survive. Those of us who actually try to follow and stick with our beliefs are looked at as crazy and people are publicly stating that wrong equals right.

As much as I hate to say it, the liberals were right about one thing. An embarrassingly large part of the group calling itself conservative is no such thing.

[metmom]

Catholics do not share and never have shared the notion that if you've seen one sin you've seen 'em all.

Then you'd be denying the words that your church claims to have written, from a book it loves to quote from no less.

James 2:10-11 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

It also shows a misunderstanding of forgiveness and grace. Salvation is not an on again/off again proposition based on works. It is a gift, freely given. Sin disrupts the lines of communication between us and God and has consequences, as God will not allow any child of His to continue in sin without dealing with him about it. But it does not cost us our salvation every time we sin.

If our salvation were based on works, Jesus would have had no reason to die and we'd have something to boast about in ourselves. Not to mention that it's well nigh impossible for any one person to be able to ask forgiveness for each and every sin they've committed as nobody can keep that kind of account. All it would take is missing confessing one sin and you're doomed.

God doesn't intend for us to live under that kind of cloud of fear and uncertainty.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Use the Bible, in context, to refute one thing I have said

1 John 5:16-17 (RSV): "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal."

[Colofornian]

Religion is a distraction - even those who profess to follow Biblical Christianity seem unaware of what it's really about and do not follow the "rules", yet they consider themselves above all others.

With Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the news again this past week, there were threads galore on Wright & Obama's religious ties.

I'm sure you went on several of those threads & pointed out to the posters, "Religion is a distraction" -- right? (Somehow, I get the feeling, "no, 'twasn't 'right'")

Seems that "Religion is only a distraction" for the sudden Mormon apologists on FR...I can't seem to find ANY FREEPERs who will EVER come on to any Rev. Wright -- or any "Obama-is-a-closet-Muslim" FR thread -- and make the same claim. I'm befuddled that if people have this "religion is a distraction" as a core claim...a core religio-political worldview...why it's so narrowly applied. [Well, actually, I'm not so befuddled...seeing it done/not done all the time on FR]

Hence a cult (& cultist) quite commonly goes up for "protection" & "elevation" by FREEPERs. But Islam? But Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Never on FR!

Is Wright fair game on FR? (Ya betcha)
Is Obama catering to Muslims fair game on FR? (Ya betcha)
Is Romney's Mormonism fair game on FR? (Ya betcha)

You see your silence on your alleged claim of "distraction" when it comes to Obama places you square on an obvious continuum...a continuum that ranges from "Inconsistency" on one side to "Open Dual-Faced Religious Hypocrite" on the other side. Where on that continuum would you place yourself, and why?

All I ask for is consistency in the application of your worldview here. Sadly, I think I've only seen it once (actually within the last week) and NEVER before that on this issue on FR.

That's a rather sad commentary since so many conservatives otherwise tend to operate on principle...yet not here.

[Colofornian]

Politics requires a choice between opposing parties.

Exactly. And guess what? I've got some "historical news" for you -- since it seems we're heading toward that same historical cycle:

And here's that news: At some point in our country's history (mid-19th century), voters stopped voting for one of those "opposing parties" -- Whig party candidates.

Imagine that.

And what then cropped up as THE "go to" party?

The GoP.

A fledgling GoP that had backbone.

A fledgling GoP that gave us Lincoln as a candidate in 1859...and three years before that a social-issues agenda that took on the "twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery & polygamy.

We know what Lincoln did on behalf of slaves in the 1860s. And we know what the GoP did via legislation in the 1860s thru 1880s re: polygamy -- including shipping an elected polygamist congressman back to Utah in 1898.

At some RINO flash point, more & more GoP people -- like me later this year (& others to come) -- will leave the GoP.

You do realize, doncha, that the registered GoP voters are now only 29% of the entire registered-voter pie?

And I believe this % will drop in 2012 and even more so in 2013.

At some point, independent tea party and independent conservative social-issues voters will constitute a larger voter block than the increasingly dwindling -- and now OFFICIALLY RINO -- GoP. It'll be incumbent for the tardy ones left in the GoP to abandon ship before they go down with it.