Posted on 10/19/2011 11:02:35 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Besides other issues with Newt (or Rudy) I have to wonder ... if he cannot honor a vow he made to his wife in front of God and witnesses, why would I expect him to honor the pledge to “us” to uphold the constitution? I can forgive him on a personal level sure, but I don’t have to put him in position to potentially betray my trust. I see it as a very severe “character issue”.
And you bringing this up, is nothing but absolute speculation, which should be reserved orchestrated stupid television shows like Dr. Idiot, or Jerry Springer and his audience slackjawed morons.
What an uplifting story. Proud to be on the same board as you.
Man, that's the truth. You could put them in a ring and charge for drinks. It wouldn't be like Muhammad (Cassius Clay) Ali vs. Sonny Liston, but more like Liston vs. Primo Carnera, or perhaps, this:
Yeah, I know all about Newt's "baggage", but man: is he brilliant. Lights out, Barack.
This would be as opposed to the marriage of convenience of someone like Billy Jeff Clinton, or a marriage where the wife actually runs the country like with Jimmah Carter? Or, how about the infidelity of Jack Kennedy? I’m quite sure that in this country’s 235 year history there have been Presidents for whom faithfulness to their spouse was not a priority. Yet, for most of these Presidents, their ability to abide by and for the Constitution have rarely been questioned. I would gladly exchange Newt for Obozo, despite their differences when it comes to marriage. Newt, at least, isn’t working overtime to change our Republic to a Marxist/Communist regime.
Thank you.
SoldierDad,
Thank you for your story. I can personally relate to some of it, not all, but some.
It is clear to me that you were a good son, you’re a good dad and a good and fair man.
Newt comes up with the most perfect answers a lot of the time....that he doesn’t always live up to these principles is fact. We need to never venture off the path to truth and justice-—which is outlined in our Founding documents....it is very clear-—our inalienable rights come from God and as such we ALWAYS use his standards for our legal system (not Barney Frank’s standards).
That said, we have gone off the path since the progressive Oliver Wendell Holmes destroyed our “Rule of Law” and created arbitrary laws (Positive Law) not based on “Right Reason according to Nature” which is the foundation of our legal system (and Natural Law Theory).
Faith matters—and our system has to have people who believe in God....that was understood by all the Founders. Atheists could not honestly take any of the oaths for government positions. Allah doesn’t take the place of God either, so the Koran that advocates shariah laws should NEVER be used because it goes against all the principles of our government and is in direct conflict with our Constitution. We used to have to take oaths to be citizens of this country and not all belief systems were accepted.
Communism/atheism was one of them. Fundamentally in direct conflict with our Constitution. Freedoms were only available to those with the concept that their are higher laws than man-made up laws which are not based on the idea of nature and God—Supra Positive Law.
“Time to open your heart; forgive and move on. Its not healthy for you to hold grudges for anothers personal indiscretions for so long.”
As an unmarried young Catholic, I find this statement offensive.
Yes, faith is important, and it’s important to obey what the church teaches, especially when it goes against your natural inclinations.
Santorum’s answer is much better. He is absolutely spot-on correct. As usual, Newt obfuscates because he thinks he’s the smartest person in the room. He’s not. I guess Newt has reason to feel uncomfortable with Santorum’s emphasis on values, eh?
For the most part politicians are arrogant egotistical power hungry and will do or say what ever it takes to attain and hold power
Their God is themselves or think they have been ordained by the Creator to rule
Absolutely right. What do you not understand about this? Our government is SECULAR. It is not, and should not be, a theocracy. That is what the islamists do. We are a free society. Therefore, the individual voter is certainly free to determine who they vote for based on religion; but a candidate's religion or lack of it is not a qualification or disqualification for office.
I guess it’s going to be up to you to determine who is religious enough to become POTUS, because I know I am not qualified to determine that. I look at convictions, track record and values.
And, btw, just how religious was John Adams? And, did George Washington attend church regularly, a church that YOU would approve of? I have no idea.
You’re a complete fraud.
http://community.wizards.com/benkenobi?pref_tab=profile
Indeed it was an excellent answer! Newt Gingrich has certainly made mistakes in his life....as have WE ALL...but I get the sense that he has grown from that.
I know that I DEFINITELY like how he is doing in these debates.
I also like Rick Santorum.
Both understand the important issue and WHY they are important.
We are praying for this nation....and that God will grant us the blessing of good leaders.
Thank you for posting this:
You can tell when someone has not received the life-changing experience of being saved & forgiven when they point to someones old man and assume that the person is still the same as they were.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
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.