Skip to comments.Test of Fire: Election 2012
Posted on 10/13/2012 8:35:37 AM PDT by bray
click here to read article
Great GREAT AD
God bless you, Jim! Your post made me weep!
We completely understand Jim. Nobody has ever questioned your faith, your patriotism or your wisdom. We take care of this problem now and take the next step in 4 years.
Pray for America
Thank you for posting that incredible video! It touched me to my core!
Wow. Powerful stuff.
A friend of mine emailed it to me and I had to share it. Thanks Jim.
WOWOWOOWOW!!!! I like this very much. It is the LIGHT that pierces the darkness. It is TRUTH!
**Your vote will affect the future and be RECORDED in eternity.**
Long live CHRIST the KING!
Let us LIVE the Year of FAITH! May God help us to re-evangelize our people and rebuild in the wisdom of God.
One more thought: Can we send this video to Joe Biden?
Some very well done ads by 3rd party groups this year. With all of their millions and high powered Madison Ave ad firms, why are the GOP and Romney ads so pathetic?
A great commercial, and as a Catholic I will gladly vote to uphold those values.
But I have to wonder if the church recognizes where that leads you given that both candidates support abortion in varying degrees? If you want to vote consistently pro-life, only the second parties are offering candidates that meet that standard.
Aw c’mon guys . . . give him a break!
Intelligence briefings are boring, golf games are exciting! It’s just a case of preferred priorities.
the fact is your vote is a trivial civic matter. Has little to do with eternity.
Some people do nothing regarding politics and then claim that their vote fulfills their civic duties for the year. Your vote ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
Thanks .................................... FRegards
What is really great about this video is where it came from.
A guy and his wife. And they uploaded it to youtube and had a million hits.
I love the internet.
Not sure. Part of what makes this one work is that it deals with core values/principles vs. a person.....much easier to promote these simple truths vs. a person with a complex personality Also, the spot is quite lengthy compared to a normal ad. I didn’t realize how long it was until I looked at the time; it was that well done.
I wish we could see more quality spots like this.
You have to vote for the one who is more pro-life but who also has a chance to win.
We can’t win everything today but, we can start giving our babies a chance at life.
God knows what we are going through and I am sure that a merciful God wants us to try.
I like your tagline.
“You have to vote for the one who is more pro-life but who also has a chance to win.”
That’s the nut of the argument right there: at what point do you compromise your longterm beliefs for the short term win? I personally don’t think that willard is a win for either conservatism or life. He’s at best a squish on both. He’s a vote for the status quo.
Roe v Wade will be 40 years old next year, and with some minor exceptions, abortion is just as legal as it was on that dark day in 1973. The gop for most of that 40 years has been identified the “pro-life party.” At a certain point results matter. And the results of trusting the gop on this have been failure.
“God knows what we are going through and I am sure that a merciful God wants us to try.”
Absolutely! And God also trusts us to acknowledge the truth that is standing before our noses. Willard and the gop will do nothing to change the status quo. We can acknowledge that truth and try to do better, or we can continue to do the same thing over and over and over and hope that somehow, contrary to all logic and common sense, that the results this time will be different.
VERY powerful! Thanks for the ping!
Thank you for that beautiful Scripture and your testimony, dear Jim!
Of course you know this means Civil War? It took its time coming.
The left must be destroyed.They have gone too far to even be called civilized, and now have become liberal fascists.
A great deal of the damage the left has caused to America has been through their using the Supreme Court. The next 4 years will bring 2 or possibly even 3 new Supremes. If Obama stays in office, they will be more Sotomayers and Kagans and we can just throw in the towel with an enormously “progressive” Supreme Court for decades.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 79 (and fighting pancreatic cancer)
Antonin Scalia, age 76
Anthony Kennedy, age 75
Stephen Breyer, age 74
Clarence Thomas, age 64
Samuel Alito, age 62
Sonia Sotomayor, age 58
John Roberts, age 57
Elena Kagan, age 52
Romney named Robert Bork the head of his Judicial Advisory Comittee. Jay Sekulow is also a Romney advisor.
Mitt Romney deeply understands that the rule of law and the integrity of our courts are essential components of our nations strength and must be preserved. He will nominate judges who faithfully adhere to the Constitutions text, structure, and history and he will carry out the duties of President as a zealous defender of the Constitution. We fully support Mitt Romneys campaign and look forward to working with other members of the committee as we advise him on todays pressing legal issues. (Judge Robert Bork in joint statement)
Unfortunately, the gop has a less than stellar record when it comes to scotus appointments. Burger, oconnor, souter, and roberts to name a few. That the demonstrably liberal willard might appoint some scotus justices that are less horrible than what hussein would appoint is hardly a ringing endorsement. And it also avoids asking the harder question. Specifically, why is a country 300 plus million being effectively ruled by the dictats of 9 unelected bureaucrats?
thanks for the ping, and post.
No, that is an ENORMOUS endorsement.
Especially as you said yourself, we are "effectively ruled by the dictats of 9 unelected bureaucrats". You can't first complain that the differences in the SCOTUS judges aren't an endorsement, then also complain that they have way too much power.
“You can’t first complain that the differences in the SCOTUS judges aren’t an endorsement, then also complain that they have way too much power.”
Sure I can. The underlying problem is the excess power of the judiciary; neither candidate has any interest in reining that in. They also don’t fundamentally disagree on the political perspective of those who should be appointed. So why is having one picking tweedle-dee all that different from the other picking tweedle-dum particularly when neither questions whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum should have the power that they do?
Right arm!!! ;-)
Meanwhile in Russia, the beat goes on. See link about vote suppression by Putin.
Glad to hear that nothing I do here can be held against me. Am not a theologian. So thanks. However, if I had my way those who support infanticide, sodomy, envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness, theft would be held accountable. But then maybe I too would have to answer for my sins.
Lovely and powerful ad. I rarely watch a whole ad, this one I did all the way through.
“those who support infanticide, sodomy, envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness, theft would be held accountable.”
Those folks are out CAMPAIGNING for somebody. And doing it successfully. I was in a church today at a prayer rally, where they were praying about the elections. The people there are not supporting anybody because they do not know who they support. They don’t even know who is running in the crucial local elections.
So the Body of Christ in Connecticut is boycotting the campaign and then compensating by showing up on election day to vote for the Republican ticket? Maybe. What percentage just will vote Romney and leave much of the rest of the ballot blank?
If our voters do not know who the candidates are, how can they be effective advocates? And who authorized them to boycott the campaign?
Oh, I see. You are another one of those "there is no difference between Obama and Romney"... If you genuinely can't see any difference then this topic is a waste of time.
Question... are you still a Democrat as your screenname states? If so, perhaps you could spend less time complaining about the moderate RINOs that have gained power in the GOP and do something about allowing the KGB to take over yours?
“Oh, I see. You are another one of those “there is no difference between Obama and Romney”.
Not really. And you’re being lazy in trying to pigeonhole me. There are vast differences between willard and hussein in their rhetoric and style, and on economic issues I think that they’re fairly dissimilar. On religion, they’re hugely different.
On abortion...not much of a difference. On guns....not much of a difference. On the role of government in society...not much of a difference.
“Question... are you still a Democrat as your screenname states?”
No. I’m not a member of any political party at this point. I keep the site handle out of nostalgia.
On abortion...not much of a difference.
Obama voted against the "Born Alive" legislation, you can't get any more pro-abortion than demanding a doctor kill a baby alive and already delivered outside of the mother.
vetoed a bill making the morning-after pill (abortifacient) available over the counter
vetoed a stem-cell research bill
On guns....not much of a difference.
In 1996, signed issues statement supporting banning all handguns
In 2000, co-sponsored a bill to restrict buying handguns to 1 per month.
In 2004, voted against a bill protecting a homeowner if they had to use an illegal gun to defend against a home invasion
In 2005, voted against a bill protecting gun manufactures and dealers from civil liability for guns later used in crimes.
In 2008, supported the D.C. handgun ban argued in Heller vs. D.C.
Endorsed by the NRA. Also backed by GOAL, the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts who states:
"During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governors desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows."
(The "assault weapons ban" that Romney signed as Governor was actually BACKED by the gun lobby there because it LOOSENED the existing restrictions.)
Re: the role of government. We’ve all seen Obama’s view, including his assuming royal authority to rule entirely by Executive Order.
Here is the Club for Growth on Romneys term as Governor, quotes regarding cutting size of government, entitlement reform, tax reform.
On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%.
Governor Romney receives credit for reducing actual spending unilaterally in Fiscal Year FY2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislatures throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash nearly every part of state government to close a $3 billion deficit.
To his credit, Romney attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. Some of his more ambitious proposals were rejected by his über-liberal Legislature. These include: his plans to overhaul the wasteful Boston Municipal Court and close underused courthouses; merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the Highway Department; decentralize management of the University of Massachusetts; streamline the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission; and phase out the obsolete Worcester State Hospital where employees outnumber patients nearly 3 to 1.
Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branchs press positions, saving $1.2 million. He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the states $1.2 billion rainy day fund. While there is no question that Governor Romneys initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature.
Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.
In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the states income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002.
more at link....
additional items I think are significant:
vetoed in-state tuition for immigrants -http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass/
arranged federal agreement for Mass State Police to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal aliens - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass/
vetoed immigrants from receiving state assistance for healthcare - http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060413/NEWS/304139962&cid=sitesearch
filed legislation to reinstate capital punishment -
tried twice to pass tort-reform in 2003 and 2006 - http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905
vetoed union card-check bill that would allow union organizing without secret ballot - http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905