Skip to comments.A Conservative's Despair of a Romney Republican Ticket (Video)
Posted on 06/23/2012 7:58:06 PM PDT by Mozilla
From March when Rush read a e-mail from a friend upset at Romney. Best email ever that describes our dilemma.
A Conservative's Despair of a Romney Republican Ticket
Another related clip from last October.
Rush Limbaugh: We are Letting The Media And RINOS Pick Our Candidates
Rush Limbaugh: Romney Is NO Conservative
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
You will go crazy when Romney wins. LOL
Romney has never been outside of his liberal enclave.
This has been his actual first moment, straying out.
Whether he moves out and to the right remains to be seen, but I’m betting he will.
I don’t believe that Romney wants to be President for the same reason that Reagan did. The difference is ego.
Bottom line, you support Obama’s reelection
Why are you afraid to admit it?
Refusing to drink cyanide does not equate to support for drinking strychnine.
There's only one group drinking pro-choice democrat socialist kool-aid here, and Black Elk isn't among them.
Relax, they’re all a bunch of Obama trolls who are afraid to admit it.
On election day, everyone has a choice; help Obama or help Romney. They deny it, but they know a vote for anyone else but Romney helps Obama. Of course, they know so much more than Newt, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, The Hermanator, etc.
They want to help Obama, period.
Now they will all flame us, but who cares.
Tell me, are you this Tom guy running for president.... and have you/he ever run for School Board, or anything else, that let’s us know more about you/him rather than some self-serving website?
We see your/his ego very clearly, but what about RESULTS?
PS, if you don’t get elected President, have you thought about running for Pope next time around?
As if you had any standards.
Now they will all flame us, but who cares.
Let them flame us for opposing an avowed Marxist and enemy of the United States.
And for them to equate Romney with Obama is beyond belief.
They continue to accuse us of being Romney-botts or whatever and still don’t get it that we must do whatever it takes to defeat Obama.
Obama and his minions (Communists) have spent over 70 years getting to where they are now and they won’t give up easily.
Oh, they get it.
They just want Obama reelected!
Their arguments are lame and getting more desperate. They will get no where.
"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
g[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:
"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)
"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.
. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).
I’m a life-long Republican (worked on local, Nixon and Ford campaigns before I could even vote) but that’s not what I’m talking about. We have absolutely no control over Mr. Obama and in his second term that’ll be 100X worse. Do you truly want this man setting the tone, controlling the entire military and security apperatus, influencing the economy and ruling with his pen for another 48 months? And what’s to say he’ll leave office or even allow elections next cycle? That’s how they play it where he comes from. Look what he’s already done! TARP, Bailouts, the Porkulus, a homosexual military, amnesty, doubling food stamps, 18% U6 unemployment, etc.
See below. The rest of the coven is back.
We have absolutely no control over Mr. Obama and in his second term thatll be 100X worse. Do you truly want this man setting the tone, controlling the entire military and security apperatus, influencing the economy and ruling with his pen for another 48 months? And whats to say hell leave office or even allow elections next cycle? Thats how they play it where he comes from. Look what hes already done! TARP, Bailouts, the Porkulus, a homosexual military, amnesty, doubling food stamps, 18% U6 unemployment, etc.
Anyone not terrified of another 0bama tetm is not rational....
Get out the silver crosses and wooden stakes.
“Anyone not terrified of another 0bama term is not rational....”
I also find the Romney hatred mystifying. At this point it is like the leftie Dems voting for Nader, leaving Al Gore out to dry.
Oh well, I hate to see my FRiends behaving irrationally. They say their fire is so hot, but they’re blinded by their zeal and its consequences; Obama.
Not that I think Romney will lose if a few white hot irrational FReepers don’t support him. Things are so bad under O that’s not what’s going to happen.
No truer pic, thanks!!
God will not bless a nation who elects one or the other,
Romney and Obama are pro-abortionists and both profess a belief in the terrible sin of sodomy.
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.