Posted on 01/09/2015 7:04:41 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It's all very simple: the Republicans lost Florida in the 2012 presidential election by 0.88. If conservatives stay at home in 2016 in the same numbers as they did in 2012, then there is no chance of the GOP winning. If conservatives are advised by Governor Palin (unlike in 2012) and Mark Levin to either stay home or vote third-party, then it is impossible to see how Florida could be won by, for example, Jeb Bush.
However, for argument's sake, if, because of Bush's Florida connection and a bad economy, Florida is won, then Ohio (-2.98%), Virginia (-3.88%), and Colorado (-5.36%) also have to be roped-in. The road to 270 Electoral College votes is extremely difficult under the most optimal of circumstances; utter realism indicates that it is impossible with the slightest bleeding off of actual or potential votes from 2012.
What Ralph Nader did for Al Gore's hopes in 2000 would be a pinprick compared to the mountain a Republican nominee would face with a conservative base doing a de Blasio back-turn. There is no comparison with Reagan's 1980 victory, even though there was Republican John Anderson, running as an independent, who got 6.6% of the vote. This is because a Republican won't win both New York and California, as Reagan did, for the foreseeable future.
If the Republican nominee is an establishment figure, a Bush or a Christie, then he has to face the question of his relationship with Governor Palin. Mitt Romney didn't have her as part of his campaign or even have her address the Republican Convention (at which she was the star just four years earlier) in 2012. What did that avail him? There is, of course, no way to determine if the millions of potential GOP voters who stayed home might have turned out...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
$.98 - $.89 < $.10
You're a hoot.
GHWB ran on it but he was a liar.
The hard part is that we are the one’s who work jobs, so we have little time for ‘activist’ activities.
But SOMEONE has to take the initiative. And I am convinced that God uses ordinary men to achieve great things.
Whatever you achieve, you will be able to hold your head high know that you have done your best.
So...if a Republican said he was a Satanist....that wouldn't be disagreeable???
God calls us to a high standard. My personal dissatisfaction with others does not absolve me of my duty as a steward of the resources God has given me.
Please see # 66.
LOL!!! HAHAHA!!!
Zero difference remains to be seen.
If the R’s don’t muster up the cogones to deal with the antics of adolescent, badly-toilet-trained Progressive
totalitarians, then the difference will be zero and the R’s will betray themselves as ineffective against the Democrat fifth-columnists.
IMHO
Perot was pro-abortion and anti-gun, his party is not the foundation for a conservative party.
I'm quite sure God...would not want you to vote for the choice that was totally disagreeable........
Is this a change of heart for you? I was under the impression that you believed that any Republican is better than a Democrat ... was I in error? Thanks! I am with you, by the way, in your above statement. I refuse to vote to embrace the Democrat agenda, which is what a vote for Romney, Christie, Jeb, and even Santorum endorses whether or not the voter intends to vote "against" the Democrat.
Yes, even Santorum -- a strong supporter of minimum wage (voted to raise it every time it came up), unions, and more and bigger government. Santorum apparently defines "conservative" as "using government to promote Christian values."
For example, in 2012, Santorum said: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world....There is no such societey, that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
He also said: I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission."
First of all, to spend government dollars on the poor is to USURP the moral duty of charity from the individual and assign it to the state. It REMOVES factors of sacrifice and moral compassion from the givers of such charity, and REMOVES the sense of gratefulness and obligation that the receiver of such charity SHOULD embrace; charity begets charity in a moral sense.
But when government USURPS this moral duty of charity, it becomes AMORAL -- that is, without reference to morality. "Givers" forced to give via taxes become slaves; receivers become entitled burdens. Government is a force that has zero business in charity. Government is supposed to be a servant; liberal use of it turns it into a tyrant.
As a believer in the conservative use of government, and as a CONSERVATIVE, I believe that "the proper role of government in this mission" is to STAND ASIDE, uphold basic law so individuals and businesses can thrive in a free market, and allow people to do their own charity in caring for those who are less fortunate. Santorum thinks government has to force them to be charitable. He thinks his role is to use government a lot -- liberally applied -- to oversee the personal, moral, Christian duty of charity.
Even "in the bedroom" -- prime example. Remove all of the Federal and state government oversight of how citizens peacefully, lawfully deal with open homosexuals in their own workplaces, communities, schools, etc. Allow businesses to discriminate against them or FOR them! Hands off! And watch the entire homosexual agenda become withered and silly, because left to their own, most good, righteous Americans would reject civilly and peacefully, "normalization" of an abnormality by definition! People have horse sense and they have morality. Government force is the only thing coercing them into accepting the homosexual agenda, in the form of civil rights and anti-discrimination law. Conservatism says, "get rid of that branch of government tyranny. Let free people deal civilly among themselves with the question of dealing with openly homosexual folks. Laws against fraud, murder, theft, personal assault, etc. are all that are needed."
A person can be a Christian, he can have all the right Christian values, hate abortion as I do, hate the homosexual agenda as I do, but if his "solution" involves more and bigger government to force people into behaving in a Christian manner ... then my vote will go elsewhere. The less government, the MORE MORAL the populace. Too many Republican office holders and potential candidates don't believe in Americans enough to trust them to do the right thing. Reagan DID, and I DO.
I never thought I’d meet a willing slave at FR.
In the US, the people are sovereign. The is no Divine Right of Kings in America.
All power flows from us. We grant limited authority to a government of our creation via the constitution. We place fellow citizens in temporary positions of power on the condition they don’t abuse the high trust we place in them
We owe no allegiance to those who betray, or we think will betray our trust.
Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.
Samuel Adams – 1722-1803, Known as the “Father of the American Revolution”, Signer of The Declaration of Independence, cousin of John Adams, and Governor of Massachusetts
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote…that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
William Penn
Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. III, p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.
Plato
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.
Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.
Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.
Our destruction, if it come at all, will be from…the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.
Daniel Webster – 1782-1852, One of the greatest orators of American history, he served as a U.S. Congressman, Senator, and as Secretary of State for three Presidents
Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote.
Abraham Lincoln– 1809-1865, 16th President of The United States
Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.
Abraham Lincoln
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Quincy Adams – 1767-1848, 6th President of the United States
The church must take right ground in regards to politics…The time has come for Christians to vote for honest men…God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground.
Charles Finney – 1792-1875, Educator, author, evangelist, and President of Oberlin College
There has been a marked increase in the tendency to remain away from the polls on the part of those entitled to vote…Election day in the olden times was generally considered more or less sacred – one to be devoted to the discharge of the obligations of citizenship.
Dr. James Dobson – 1936- Founder and President of Focus on the Family, author, speaker, defender of traditional marriage and family, advisor to high government officials
In a world that might say one vote doesn’t matter…it does matter becaue each person is of infinite worth and value to God… Your vote is a declaration of importance as a person and a citizen.
Billy Graham – 1918- Evangelist, author and statesman
Bad politicians are elected by good people who don’t vote.
Billy Graham
Finally, ye…whose high prerogative it is to…invest with office and authority or to withhold them and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country, consider well the important trust which God…has put into your hands. To God and posterity you are accountable for them.
David Barton – Historian, President of Wallbuilders, counselor to elected officials
I am the only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do, and what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.
Edward Everett Hale – 1755-1776, American patriot in the War for Independence, hanged by British as a spy
It will be conceded…that a Christian’s first duty is to God. It then follows, as a matter of course, that it is his duty to carry his Christian code of morals to the polls and vote them. Whenever he shall do that, he will not find himself voting for an unclean man, a dishonest man…If Christians should vote their duty to God at the polls, they would carry every election and do it with ease…Their prodigious power would be quickly realized and recognized, and afterward there would be no unclean candidates upon any ticket, and graft would cease…If the Christians of America could be persuaded to vote God and a clean ticket, it would bring about a moral revolution that would be incalculably beneficent. It would save the country.
-Ronald Reagan
The choice before us is plain: Christ or chaos, conviction or compromise, discipline or disintegration. I am rather tired of hearing about our rights and privileges as American citizens. The time is come — it now is – when we ought to hear about the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship. America’s future depends upon her accepting and demonstrating God’s government.
http://restoreamerica.org/pastors/quotes/
Spare me the spam.
Yet, the eGOP continues to trash conservatives.
How much sense does that make?
A common misconception is that every "authority" is a legitimate authority; if, for example, a county Sheriff is in another state he does not have the jurisdiction to perform an arrest (other than the citizen's arrest open to all citizens) precisely because his authority is bound to his county. — Likewise, my home State of New Mexico has the following statute:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.Now, the above is actually unlawful, you see the State Constitution says the following:
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) "university premises" means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]Which makes 30-7-2.4 unlawful because that statute would make it unlawful to keep firearms in student housing by the Citizen. — the statute is presented as being the law, and enforced as if it were so, but that does not make it a proper law. In a like manner we have "authorities" which have no legitimate authority other than what is assumed; as an example: by what right can the ATF regulate arms considering that the Constitution specifically prohibits infringements on the right of people to keep and bear arms?
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
What we have, for much of the federal government, is the equivalent of a Mexican gang showing up and declaring itself the authority over the people/states — sure, they did it sneakily and over the course of a century, but many of the claims have exactly the same Constitutional weight as the Mexican gang: Just because they claim that they are kings does not make them kings, just because they are big and scary and operate under color of law (and protection by the government from you) does not mean that they REALLY have the authority that they claim that they do.
I've been told that the term submit
in the new testament is a military term meaning know your place
(i.e. in formation). What we have now is a government that continually and arrogantly steps out of its lawful place (as defined by the Constitution) — now, if they reject the law, can they legitimately claim protections under the law? If, as an agent of the government, they refuse the lawful limitations placed upon the government, is it wrong to punish them? (The NSA, for example, in its domestic espionage has made the Fourth Amendment of no effect; and indeed even colludes with other agencies to work around the limits of the fourth amendment in bringing things to trial. Should they be given a pat on the back, or be prosecuted as criminals?)
Yep. And the Republican gains we just saw in Congress would probably have been on the Democrat side instead.
Fortunately in 2012, enough Americans saw through the sucker's bet of voting for Romney in order to vote "against" Obama. They recognized a loser's game and refused to play. Obama won by fraud, no doubt, but in essence, he won by default. Americans let Romney lose because on balance, they were smarter than they give each other credit.
” I know I won’t vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie if they are the nominee.”
Double Dog Dittos!
BIG OL' BUMP ...
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.