Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Pharma Chief's Fundraiser - Fr. Pavone on Romney (long title, excerpted)
National Catholic Register ^ | May 26, 2012 | Brian Fraga

Posted on 05/26/2012 6:52:48 AM PDT by bboop

... On May 16, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, visited the Miami home of Dr. Philip Frost, the chairman of the board of Teva Pharmaceuticals, an Israel-based company that produces many different medicines, including regular contraceptives. Teva is also one of the country's largest producers of generic drugs. ... “At this point, the sentiment of most pro-life leaders and activists I am in contact with is that this election is about avoiding the unmitigated disaster of a second Obama term," said Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. "This is not the first nor the last objection that will be raised against Governor Romney, and I don’t dispute the seriousness of it. But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good," Father Pavone told the Register. ... "The biggest concern is we have two choices for president, and Mitt Romney is going to be much better from our point of view," said Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Fox told the Register that she "did not have a lot to say" about the Romney fundraiser, which she suggested is being reported in the media to benefit Obama.

"They (the media) don't care if Romney is pro-life or not. They care about getting us upset, splitting us and having us not vote," Fox said. Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life, told the Register that AUL has not commented on the fundraiser, and "really cannot easily weigh in on an issue of direct partisan politics." ...

(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abo; abortion; election; romney
"This is not the first nor the last objection that will be raised against Governor Romney, and I don’t dispute the seriousness of it. But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good," Father Pavone told the Register.
1 posted on 05/26/2012 6:52:55 AM PDT by bboop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bboop
“At this point, the sentiment of most pro-life leaders and activists I am in contact with is that this election is about avoiding the unmitigated disaster of a second Obama term," said Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. "This is not the first nor the last objection that will be raised against Governor Romney, and I don’t dispute the seriousness of it. But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good."

2 posted on 05/26/2012 7:09:00 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop
But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good," Father Pavone told the Register. ...

Not only will such a choice reduce evil, but also it will signal a new direction toward good. Our country needs to start moving away from the culture of death and its ultimate chaos.

3 posted on 05/26/2012 7:09:00 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olezip

Amen!


4 posted on 05/26/2012 7:12:58 AM PDT by mckenzie7 (Democrats = Trough Sloppers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bboop; All

Conservatives must realize that we will not “fix” America with one election.
It is going to take several elections, combined with constant, full-court pressure on our Reps and Senators to legislate from the Right.

The idea is to first take the Senate and the White House and then increase the margins with true Conservatives...veto-proof margins.

It may take 20 years to achieve this, but remember, the decline of the nation didn’t happen overnight.

Restoration will not be swift....but it IS certain.


5 posted on 05/26/2012 7:14:27 AM PDT by TheRobb7 (Remember, JimRob called a truce....not a surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Pavone is part of the problem.


6 posted on 05/26/2012 7:17:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

You don’t move the country in a conservative direction by going along with those moving the country in a liberal direction.

It’s just common sense.

Those who think otherwise are, at best, fooling themselves.

What’s the old saying? “Only dead things move with the current.” Or something like that.


7 posted on 05/26/2012 7:21:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Care to explain, or were you aiming at general doubt and fear, shotgun-style?


8 posted on 05/26/2012 7:27:48 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
The idea is to first take the Senate and the White House and then increase the margins with true Conservatives...veto-proof margins.

WISHFUL thinking if anyone believes for one moment that even if we take control of the Senate (and "ALLOW" based on so-called "principles") Dear Leader to be re-elected, (especially with the 10 - 12 RINO's, as well as sundry other WUSSES and Girly-Guys) they will be able to "control" O'Bummer with his myriad of Czars and issuing Executive Orders even those which contravene the Constitution.

Never mind the numerous examples of the Weeper of the House caving to the pressures of the Demo-Rats, Barry Hussein and the media.

We MAY not have a Republic as we know it in 4 years.

9 posted on 05/26/2012 7:56:00 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Actually, I’ve always liked Fr. Pavone. But I don’t agree with him on this. And I’m not even sure if Romney is the lesser evil, in this regard.

He was the PIONEER of gay marriage. The first gay marriage in America was IMPOSED by Romney on Massachusetts, in violation of the usual understanding of the law.

And he was also the PIONEER of taxpayer funded abortion. Yes, Obama is following in his footsteps. But Romney was the first. He put through subsidized abortion as part of his Romneycare, and now it’s free for those who qualify, which was predictable. Obama wants to do the same thing, but he is following in Romney’s footsteps.

Same with government controlled healthcare. Romney was first, and is very unlikely to reverse Obamacare—including its insistence on taxpayer funded abortificients. Romney already has gone a step further than that in Massachusetts—taxpayer funded abortions. And he put a Planned Parenthood executive on his Romneycare board, ex-officio. The only ex-officio board member on Romney’s board is from Planned Parenthood.

Obama is an abomination. I wish I could vote for Romney, instead. But I cannot, in good conscience. Romney is the death of the GOP, the last step down into immoral corruption, just like their Whig predecessors. The Whigs lost the Christian vote. The GOP has decided to do the same.

I am extremely sorry to hear Fr. Pavone making this argument. I no longer trust him.


10 posted on 05/26/2012 7:57:40 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop
Paul Rondeau, executive director of American Life League, told the Register that nobody knows if Romney's staff investigated all the products that Teva manufactures before the fundraiser was held. Rondeau added that it is also unknown whether the actual donors present at the fundraiser were pro-life. Rondeau also said it was his understanding that the fundraiser did not involve any money from Teva.

. . . Rondeau of the American Life League noted that, in 2005, then-Gov. Romney vetoed a bill that would have required hospitals in Massachusetts to offer the morning-after pill to rape victims, as well as requiring pharmacies to sell them without a prescription. The Massachusetts Legislature later overrode Romney's veto.

While it is right to question the wisdom of Romney's fundraiser, Rondeau said there was still "no question" that Obama is the "abortion president". . . .

That's about where I am on this right now. I think that that fundraiser could have been handled better to make clear this was not a "pro-abortion event." But Romney is campaigning on a pro-life platform, calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Plus, we know what Obama is.

11 posted on 05/26/2012 8:17:22 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

No need. It’s obvious from his own comments. Fr. Pavone has a history of politically embracing liberals and compromisers of truth and principle using this theory of his, and it’s killing us.


12 posted on 05/26/2012 8:24:34 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
But Romney is campaigning on a pro-life platform, calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Romney is "running" on a judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat, pro-choice for states, platform vis a vis life. It's right on his own website.

13 posted on 05/26/2012 8:28:27 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Folks that pine for 1860 are a problem.

Obama is THE problem.


14 posted on 05/26/2012 8:43:52 AM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Innovative; Drew68; Longbow1969; altura
Romney is "running" on a judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat, pro-choice for states, platform vis a vis life. It's right on his own website.

Overturning Roe v. Wade--which is Romney's position--would enable the states once again to have laws against abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would return us to the situation as it was in our country from its founding up until January 22, 1973.

And since you bring up Romney's website, let's see what it says on this issue:

Abortion

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

Sounds pretty good to me. I'll take that any day of the week over Obama.

15 posted on 05/26/2012 8:56:33 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Whom did he embrace?

I am aware that defaming Catholic priests is fair game in this particular culture, but some might need an explanation, as opposed to your demand to do research to get your defamation out of their minds.

Perhaps you have a certain case in mind whose source you could point to for ease of verification.


16 posted on 05/26/2012 8:57:26 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson; BlackElk; Gelato; Steve Schulin; wagglebee

Sounds good to you, eh? Sorry, but the whole thing is a complete denial of republican constitutional self-government, separated, enumerated powers, the oath of office, and most importantly, the self-evident truths of the founding concerning God-given, unalienable rights, starting with the supreme right, the right to life.

Wrapped in one tissue-thin layer of lies, of course, like everything always is with Mitt Romney.


17 posted on 05/26/2012 9:04:42 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stanne

I don’t defame anyone. Those who embrace evil while trying to put a biblical sheen on what they are doing defame themselves. All I’m doing is pointing it out.


18 posted on 05/26/2012 9:08:44 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
the whole thing is a complete denial of republican constitutional self-government, separated, enumerated powers. . . .

So do you DEFEND Roe v. Wade?? What is your position on it? I see Roe v. Wade precisely as an egregious violation of the Tenth Amendment, the federal government (i.e., the SCOTUS) overstepping its bounds by taking away the states' right to have laws against abortion. How can you not be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade?

19 posted on 05/26/2012 9:11:04 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stanne
Perhaps you have a certain case in mind whose source you could point to for ease of verification.

He's supporting the most liberal governor in our nation's history, while claiming to "limit evil." Which is a tacit admission on his part that Romney is evil, by the way.

What more do you need to know?

20 posted on 05/26/2012 9:12:22 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
These celebrity priests always turn out to be deeply flawed in one way or another. One after another.
21 posted on 05/26/2012 9:21:22 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You don’t move the country in a conservative direction

Aren't you the guy who is running for President from that party Alan Keyes used last time around? Didn't that loon Cynthia McKinney even get like two or three times as many votes as your party got in 2008? You are hardly one to talk about moving the country in a conservative direction. All you are doing is splintering off a few thousand right of center voters. Sorry, but a teenager putting up Romney signs in median strips for HS government class credit is doing more to move this country in a conservative direction than you are.

22 posted on 05/26/2012 9:22:50 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

The Tenth Amendment speaks only of legitimate powers, of the general government, the states, and the people.

But our free republic is premised upon the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, starting with the right to life. Notice that those rights are not granted by men, period. Not by our national government. Not by the states. Not by the people themselves.

Not only do the states have no legitimate power to alienate God-given, unalienable rights, they have a sworn obligation to protect them. It’s not optional. It is imperative. This is the primary reason these governments, these offices, all of them, exist.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I find it amazing that one has to contend on FreeRepublic.com for the ABCs of American self-government.


23 posted on 05/26/2012 9:28:06 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

“Splintering them off” from what? A pro-choice democrat socialist?

Look, we’re gathering up principled conservatives, in order to reestablish a culture of principle in our politics once again.

And I assure you, principled conservatives aren’t going to be voting for Mitt Romney in any case.

So, what are you worried about?


24 posted on 05/26/2012 9:32:11 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
National Right to Life and Susan B. Anthony List have both endorsed Romney - along with other pro-life/pro-family groups such as the National Organization for Marriage.

National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:

-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."

-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.

-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."

The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.

For the purposes of this particular national general election, those endorsements are good enough for me on the social issue front. Romney is a flip flopper and I don't trust him, but he will be better than Obama on these issues.

25 posted on 05/26/2012 9:33:37 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
So do you DEFEND Roe v. Wade??

No, I ignore it, just like I ignore Dred Scott.

It's nothing more than an immoral, unconstitutional court opinion in one particular case.

Romney, on the other hand, being the anti-constitution, anti-republican judicial supremacist that he is, thinks courts make laws.

But they don't. Article One, Section One of the Constitution grants that power only to the Congress.

The cold hard fact is that Romney's position, even constantly modified as it has been for political purposes, remains that of a pro-choice democrat.

26 posted on 05/26/2012 9:37:22 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
National Right to Life and Susan B. Anthony List have both endorsed Romney - along with other pro-life/pro-family groups such as the National Organization for Marriage.

Follow the money.

27 posted on 05/26/2012 9:38:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
And I assure you, principled conservatives aren’t going to be voting for Mitt Romney in any case.

What kind of arrogant statement is that? Good grief man. Your presidential run is off to a bad start if that is the sort of thing you go around saying. You don't consider people like Mark Levin a principled conservative? Political realities are what they are, and the MAJORITY of principled conservatives recognize that only Romney or Obama have any chance to win. General elections are NOT an affirmative endorsement of any candidate, they are simply a choice between the candidates that have any chance to win. MOST principled conservatives are going to vote for Romney, but that doesn't mean they support or like him - only that they realize Hussein is a far worse alternative.

Look, we’re gathering up principled conservatives, in order to reestablish a culture of principle in our politics once again.

No you're not. You are feeding your ego and encouraging a few thousand voters to flush their ballots down the crapper. You're party is going nowhere and you know it.

I've no doubt you are probably very smart and insightful when it comes to specific political ideas and issues. Heck, maybe brilliant. The problem is you are directing your energy in such a way that you waste all that knowledge and up hurting conservatism far more than helping it.

28 posted on 05/26/2012 9:44:20 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: steve86

“These celebrity priests always turn out to be deeply flawed in one way or another. One after another.”

Always?


29 posted on 05/26/2012 9:53:20 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

There are words, and there are actions.

Folks can tell me how conservative they are til the cows come home, but if they support liberals I’m going to believe their actions.

It’s only common sense.


30 posted on 05/26/2012 9:59:16 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Longbow1969
Follow the money.

Since you make that accusation against longtime pro-lifers who are endorsing Romney, one could likewise say "Follow the money" in regard to what you are doing. You have a vested financial interest (I assume you accept donations) in drawing supporters away from Romney and to your candidacy.

Now I am not saying you are doing what you're doing for the money, but then I don't think you should say committed pro-lifers are endorsing Romney because of money.

31 posted on 05/26/2012 10:00:05 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Longbow1969; Drew68; Innovative; altura
So do you DEFEND Roe v. Wade??

No, I ignore it. . . . It's nothing more than an immoral, unconstitutional court opinion. . . .

So you IGNORE an unconstitutional court opinion, which could be overturned with a good SC appointment or two, which in turn would be the biggest pro-life victory we've had ever since abortion became legal. You thereby prove your irrelevance.

32 posted on 05/26/2012 10:06:21 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stanne

That has certainly been the pattern recently.


33 posted on 05/26/2012 10:08:20 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
General elections are NOT an affirmative endorsement of any candidate, they are simply a choice between the candidates that have any chance to win.

The founders of this republic had a very different opinion.

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."

-- George Washington

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country."

-- Samuel Adams

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."

-- Samuel Adams

"Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for [your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutely oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch over your liberties and privileges - civil and religious - with a careful eye."

-- Matthias Burnett

"[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they take."

-- Charles Finney

"Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."

- James Garfield

"If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption - from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . . our Union . . . will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.""

-- Francis Grimke

"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."

-- Alexander Hamilton

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." "The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live."

-- John Jay

"The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people." "S]hould things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. . . .[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones."

-- William Penn

"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

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country." "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 sqandered 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."

-- Noah Webster

"Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches."

-- John Witherspoon

"We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature, as each branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing at stated periods, one branch, which branch has the power of electing another. It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of political principles and measures."

-- John Adams


34 posted on 05/26/2012 10:09:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
So you IGNORE an unconstitutional court opinion...[?]

Every officer of government, in every branch, at every level, in this free republic is required to swear to support the Constitution, not the courts.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

-- Article VI, the United States Constitution

Can you point me to that part of the Supreme Law of the Land that would indicate otherwise, or perhaps some amendment I've missed?

35 posted on 05/26/2012 10:15:34 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
You thereby prove your irrelevance.

Indeed. Complete and utter irrelevance. Then again, this is a "presidential candidate" who seems to have an enormous amount of time to not only post on political forums, but to declare that no principled conservative would vote for Romney. I am fairly certain his relevance to the political process is bordering on none anyway.

36 posted on 05/26/2012 10:16:12 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
which could be overturned with a good SC appointment or two, which in turn would be the biggest pro-life victory we've had ever since abortion became legal.

I've heard these empty promises my whole adult life. And still, the holocaust continues.

And will, until destruction falls on our heads, as long as we continue to elect pro-choice democrats like Obama and Romney.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

-- Thomas Jefferson


37 posted on 05/26/2012 10:18:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
Since you make that accusation against longtime pro-lifers who are endorsing Romney, one could likewise say "Follow the money" in regard to what you are doing. You have a vested financial interest (I assume you accept donations) in drawing supporters away from Romney and to your candidacy.

Now I am not saying you are doing what you're doing for the money, but then I don't think you should say committed pro-lifers are endorsing Romney because of money.

That's what you get for making assumptions.

America's Party: No donations

Tom Hoefling: I don't want your money.


38 posted on 05/26/2012 10:25:46 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Even so, you should not imply that pro-lifers are endorsing Romney because of financial gain, which is what you did with your “Follow the money” comment. You are making an assumption about ther motives, which you do not know.


39 posted on 05/26/2012 10:30:31 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Constitutional and social conservative Republican who wants to win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stanne; EternalVigilance
Whom did he embrace?

Note that when you pin him down on it, he tries to squirm away by claiming he was referring to Romney, but he wasn't. Here's what was posted:

Fr. Pavone has a history of politically embracing liberals and compromisers of truth and principle using this theory of his, and it’s killing us.

We're not stupid EV - we can read. You're an intellectual coward who can't admit that you f***ed up. At least in this particular instance.

Despite his faults (real faults or the imaginary faults ascribed to him by you) Father Pavone has saved more lives than you could in ten lifetimes.

Your blathering on FR doesn't save lives.

40 posted on 05/26/2012 10:32:19 AM PDT by AAABEST (Et lux in tenebris lucet: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I wasn’t talking about Romney. Fr. Pavone has put his Republican Party status ahead of principle for some time, using the exact sort of morally-flawed self-justifications he used in the quotes in this article. He did the same thing with McCain for example.

The primary obstacles to stopping the abortion holocaust in this country are the “leaders” of the “pro-life” industry, including Pavone.

If they’ve endorsed Romney, they’re compromised. You can take that to the bank. And while you’re there you’ll probably run into some of these folks cashing their checks.


41 posted on 05/26/2012 11:02:11 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: steve86

“A pattern” is not the same as “always”


42 posted on 05/26/2012 11:06:28 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
Even so, you should not imply that pro-lifers are endorsing Romney because of financial gain, which is what you did with your “Follow the money” comment. You are making an assumption about ther motives, which you do not know.

I'm not stupid. Romney is a leveraged buyout guy. That's what he does. And he and his well-heeled supporters have been buying everyone who can be bought in the GOP hierarchy for years now. You can claim that that doesn't have anything to do with the support he has received from these people all you want, but that doesn't even pass the laugh test.

43 posted on 05/26/2012 11:07:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

“Fr. Pavone has a history of politically embracing liberals and compromisers of truth and principle using this theory of his, and it’s killing us.

We’re not stupid EV”

I sure did notice. Inconsistencies in his “argument” allowed me to walk away from any further interaction.

Waste of time.


44 posted on 05/26/2012 11:13:54 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stanne
Inconsistencies in his “argument” allowed me to walk away from any further interaction.

Other than fear-mongering or throwing insults, walking away from discussions about principle is about all Romney Republicans can do. I mean, what else is there for them?

45 posted on 05/26/2012 11:20:42 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Thanks for your profound insight.

I’ll try and remember you when I need another one.


46 posted on 05/26/2012 11:35:52 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Here’s some insight. Try Fr. Groeschel or Cardinal Fulton Sheen.


47 posted on 05/26/2012 12:01:06 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I did not throw an insult nor did I walk away from a discussion. I walked away from illogical banter.


48 posted on 05/26/2012 12:02:38 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stanne

“Illogical banter”? You asked for an example and I gave you one, right from the article at the top of the thread. I can’t help it can’t deal with that.


49 posted on 05/26/2012 12:25:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson