Posted on 07/17/2012 3:30:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
As Alan Keyes wrote the other day, you cannot fight evil with evil.
If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor:
A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub (FR thread)
Brief excerpt:
I grieve deeply as I contemplate the fact that millions of Americans are letting themselves be caught in this diabolical snare. As I tried to point out in 2008, the lesser of evils is still evil. No matter how such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.
I’m morally certain this is why Christ admonished his disciples to make striving for God’s perfection the standard for their actions, rather than their hatred of evil. He thought it better to fail reaching for this standard than succeed by abandoning one’s life to the devil’s dominion. He thought it better to fail in the world’s eyes while commending one’s spirit to God (as he does on the cross) than succeed by casting one’s lot with God’s adversary.
--Alan Keyes
A man who for over 30 years of his adult life by his own admission justified the wholesale slaughter of innocent and helpless human life is purely evil and can and did justify anything. Many times.
Romney's entire political life has been a mis-adventure into godless liberal/progressive evil. There can be no denying that he has during his tenure either advocated for or personally enacted nearly the entire godless liberal/progressive agenda. He has succeeded where the Democrats have failed and he has shown them the way. His record of evil leftist doings, rationalizing, justifying, flip-flopping and mealy-mouthed parsing and spinning (lying) precedes him and tells the tale of the man. He has no foundation. No core principles. No Christian values. No moral compass. If ever a man was a godless liberal in the GOP, he is Myth Romney.
If the Republican conservatives in office or in leadership positions or in the so-called conservative media would simply stop rooting for this evil bastard and commit to the TRUTH and stand tall for Life and Liberty now and at the convention, we could chuck this liberal bastard onto the ash heap of history and run a pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-small government conservative Republican that we can all be proud to support over the Marxist usurper. And we would WIN in a Reaganesque landslide!!
Perversely, Romney is just about the only Republican who may actually lose to Obama. Hell, even McCain beat Romney.
Taking the right path is not easy and not popular at this time, but it's the only path.
May we stand on God's side while attempting to save our Republic!!
That's how horribly, ruinously astray they've gone, as a party: they've finally morphed, en masse, into chirpy, blank-eyed little simulacra of George McGovern.
The shrill, self-righteous scolds of Mittens' online Sister-Wife Squadron are absolutely correct in noting, while clutching their skirts and clucking disapprovingly, that "The Free Republic of today is nothing like it used to be."
Just not in the way they think they are.
No. We had a weak field and did not unify behind one candidate in order to keep Romney from winning enough delegates to secure the nomination.
WE need… we need… we need…
Knowing what we need has never been the problem. "Who" is the problem. That hasn't changed and until it does, nothing has changed..
thanks for your reply.
No true, God fearing conservative will vote for Romney.
How bizarre. I suppose that fits the mindset of a Mitbot. Look at Mass. And that’s what you will get for the country with Mit at the helm. Mit is playing a fake conservative to get your vote.
>> You however think we have a better chance of regaining liberty with Obama.<<
You know what I think? Are you clairvoyant or something? Are all Mitbots somehow able to know what people are thinking? I deal in facts not some presumptive assumption.
>> If your comeback is Romney is the same as Obama<<
Now you presume to know what my comeback is going to be? Why involve me in this conversation? Romney is not like Obama. They just both will lead the country to the same socialistic state.
>> You are living in a bizzaro world where Obama and Romney are one in the same.<<
So you have decided that I think Obama and Romney are one and the same! Having a conversation with you would be rather futile wouldn’t it. I wouldn’t have to say anything since you have already decided what I think and will say.
I doubt all are that knee jerking doctrinaire about the issue. But there will be easily enough nose clothespins sold in early November to set a record.
No black guns in New York? But grey and purple and rainbow ones are okay? Weird. Would it were that New York restrictions only went that far.
In the fallen world, well past Eden, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. I’m flabbergasted to see the sniping over who would be the best one to take the place if Romney got elbowed aside (quite unlikely, but hypothetically speaking). Wouldn’t you take Santorum, Gingrich, Palin, Cain, Perry, West all in a heartbeat if that became possible? Oh no, no. We are in the field surviving on out of date MREs and the debate is over what the best caviar would be.
Ah, of course the pocketful of filthy lucre
” - - - Today’s GOP — the putative “party of conservatism” — is roughly where the ‘Rats were in ‘72 - - - “
Good AND accurate observation!
We need to define ourselves before we can take over the Republican Party. If not, we will split into the various hotbutton topic-oriented groups that will keep us distracted from solving the main problem.
If most Republicans think of themselves as “Conservatives,” then they need to ask themselves this question: “What are we Conserving?”
Words mean things to voters IF they are backed up by actions.
Free Republic fairly represents the tangled web of generations that still want to be proud of America, IMHO.
The shift that you pointed out is a major one, seen in hindsight.
The shift that I see playing out now is the Socialist/Communist Surge which will culminate with the US Federal Government rapidly becoming the US Welfare State.
Currently, the Feds borrow 40 cents on the dollar by selling Federal Bonds so that the Feds can pay out 40 cents on the dollar to the Welfare Entitlement voters.
Additionally, Socialist Volker came up with THE Corporate Welfare Slogan: “To Big To Fail” which means that ALL BIG entities that involve risk of failure will be given Federal Welfare if they fail.
The problem is that there is no entity to give the Feds Welfare if the Feds fail.
Thus, the Feds will have to follow England’s model in the 1950’s and 60’s and Nationalize the Major Industries.
This has already begun.
Obama”care” has nothing to do with “care’” and everything to do with Nationalizing 1/6 of the US Economy: the Feds need the MONEY!
The Fed’s National Debt is a little more than the GDP of the US, so $15, 000,000,000,000.00 X 1/6 = $ 2,500,000,000,000.00 Est. Annual Return to the FEDS, less expenses, of course.
The US Welfare Entitlement State began with FDR’s Social Security System, to help the WW1 veterans who were rioting on the DC Mall. The WW1 Veterans are all dead now, but FDR’s now bankrupt SSS lives on.
BTW, just for a dose of REALITY as to who is sincere about conserving, ask your “Conservative” Republican Friends when they would like to start to have their present or future SSS checks, Medicare and Medicaid checks reduced by 10 % a year, every year until the SSS, Medicare and Medicaid Welfare Entitlement Programs can be sold to Private Charities.
That dose of Reality will demonstrate to you why we need to define ourselves very clearly, because we NEED a Conservative Republican Party to Counteract the Socialist/Communist Surge.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT A NATIONAL ELECTION IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE.
And at this point that is really saying something about Beelzebub and the Republican Party these days. The RP has been and iss dying from a stinking, rotting cancer that is destroying the party and this (once great) country from the inside out and from the top down. I am one of those principled God fearing Christian Americans who just cannot bring himself to vote for Beelzebub or Satan come November. A vote cast for either one is a vote to bring this country to its collective knees as both are evil through and through. IMHO.
Oh, and both Alan Keyes and JimRob are both spot on and I'm with them both on this.
"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).
So vote for Obama. He’s obviously no different to you, and he’s already President.
FR is an elite group and sometimes it forgets that it is, and that it’s by no means average America.
The average unwashed American is very unlikely to dig that deep. Few know what Mitt did in Massachusetts and it’s not going to be Barack Obama who spills those beans, accusing Mitt of being too liberal as it were. Mitt’s talking a cautious centrist line now (his version of “severely conservative”) and it’s going to be believed by larger America.
A high profile spoiler who could challenge Mitt’s and Barack’s ad saturation capability could change that picture, but who’s going to do that? The libertarian leaning Goode can’t. The “herd of cats” won’t. Unless Mitt makes a super big flub, we are going to get a President Mitt this coming January.
Andy, you should know better.
During the founding times, mores were explicitly tied to an orthodox reading of the Judeo-Christian bible. Both testaments of it explicitly frown upon homosexual conduct. Our de facto if not de jure modern severe separation of church and state is a novel, untypical situation. The constitutional promise not to designate a particular Church Of The United States has spread far beyond its initially designed boundaries.
Hey if you can get a revolution going in Massachusetts about this, more power to ya. Short of shooting war, it would involve a legislature so energized and activist that it could and would impeach both governor and erring jurists. What the Mass. screams arrogated to do is much wilder than anything the USSC has ever done.
I agree with that statement. I long for the days when people looked forward to seeing the Christmas tree go up in the town center and singing carols (brace yourself) in public schools. And I'm Jewish, for heaven's sake...
The fact that the Ten Commandments are posted on the walls of courthouse that routinely ignore them is not just an affront to God, but to civilized society.
We were a far better country when people prayed more and complained less, and looked to their neighbors not as strangers but as friends.
At the same time when government power was held as explicitly limited with regard to economic activity, it was also constrained from entering into areas of voluntary personal behavior where force or fraud were absent.
To be fair though, public morality and civil behavior were far more common in our early years precisely because we were largely a moral people informed by God's word. There's no denying it, and increasingly, I have little patience for people (often, hard-core libertarians) who insist that morality can be defined solely by reference to what is humanly possible, as long as it is voluntarily enacted and endured.
That is why homosexuality is such a difficult subject, and I will not pretend to have all the right answers or views about it. I know a lot of gay people - having worked in the entertainment industry and also being a somewhat creative person who has a disposition to instinctively like others rather than distrust them. Perhaps that's a character flaw, but I've never quite seen it that way.
The "gay" people I know fall into two very distinct categories; for the purpose of shorthand I'll refer to them as "the shy and the obnoxious". The "shy" ones tend to be quiet, unassuming, apolitical and in their relationships, highly monogamous. They are a minority among a minority. But they exist, and they are some of the kindest, sweetest people I have ever known. You might not be surprised to know that they also tend to believe in God.
The other class contains the ones who are flamboyant, angry, decadent, self-destructive and vindictive beyond imagination. They are the ones who get all the attention and who today, control much of our public culture (and of course have significant influence in today's Democrat Party).
I am not blind to the evil that informs the dominant gay culture in places like San Francisco. I've written about it and even discussed it with gay people and I know that some of them, at least are repulsed by the sort of behavior that they themselves refuse to participate in (without getting too graphic about it).
This much I know: it is a complex issue, not pure black and pure white. The Scriptures do in fact frown upon homosexual behavior, as does the Talmud. But such behavior has existed since before Antiquity, and yet has been tacitly accepted in many civilized nations as long as it remained private and discrete and did not prey upon the young and vulnerable. Ancient Greece imploded as a civilization in part because such behavioral constraints were broadly ignored, but then, they were a pagan culture and so many of today's "obnoxious" gays are just that: pagans.
You strike me as a very intelligent person, and that's why I am writing at length. I am conflicted as a human being who on one hand believes so strongly in God and His commandments, but one who also sees that not all homosexuals are worthy of generic condemnation in light of the rot at the center of our culture, a rot that goes far deeper than issues of human sexuality but instead to the matter of who we ultimately serve as human beings and how our behavior toward our fellow human beings can both define and redeem our eternal souls.
Perhaps you are right but I really don't know and I really don't think it really matters much in the end anyway. Neither one has America and its people best interest at heart. IMO they both have ulterior motives that are contrary to what good American people need or want.
Actually I believe average American people are getting exactly what they deserve no matter who wins in November at this point in time. Way too many have had their heads stuck in the sand far too long now. Voters no longer punish bad behavior in their elected politicians. They've long grown accustomed to being lied to.
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.