Posted on 04/11/2012 8:04:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Notice: Free Republic has been in full rebellion mode since 2008 and will remain in full rebellion mode for the duration!
No more Doles!! No more McCains!! No more RINOS!!
NO ROMNEY!!
Those who cannot stomach rebellion might as well start looking for a new home on the net!!
Those who have ignored my hundreds of posts on this crucial issue or who have doubted me these last three or four years might as well get used to it. FR will never support the abortionist, homosexualist, socialist, mandate loving, constitution trampling liar Mitt Romney.
In case you haven't noticed, a TEA Party rebellion is on and Free Republic signed on years ago. There is no turning back. No more crap from the GOP-e!! They've screwed us for the last time!! Karl Rove and Mitt Romney, et al, loathe conservatism and loathe the tea party and took it upon themselves to use their money and connections to destroy nearly every one of our conservative tea party candidates while pushing their big government RINOS. That makes them the enemy. I will not reward that betrayal by giving them my support or my vote.
FR is and will remain a pro-life, pro-limited government conservative site!!
We are beholden to NO ONE!! We bow to no kings!! We bow to NO RINOS!!
I'd rather fight and die like a man than bend over and be screwed by a RINO!! I refuse to kiss Karl Rove or Mitt Romney's rings!! They can kiss my rosy red ass instead!!
FUMR!! FUGOP!!
Long live the rebellion!!
Hope my message is clear.
Both Romney and Obama have money and the cash flow to "BUY" the Presidency.....neither can win it by their agendas because neither are clear what that is to the public....neither promote the welfare of this country. Only one does so and has pledged his heart to do so...he has nothing to loose by doing so.. and wants to get this country back under "One Nation under God"..and I'll add the Christian God for which our founders established this nation on.
It's time to get behind Newt for every conservative here on FR......and on to convention!!!!!
RE "Romney...like Obama... cannot stand on his record so both back away from stating naything that will put them on one side or the other of an issue unless the public seems up for it...."
As if that wasn't bad enough, Rush and Mark Levin have taken to given Romney talking points via their broadcasts, which is really somehow filthy and immoral - they are pretty much serving as on-air consultants for helping Mitt appeal to the base... can you believe it? I mean, can you believe it? Maybe of Rush, but I certainly never expected it of Levin... And I never expected Levin to endorse Romney the other night... Never. I am still in shock...
They are actually trying to make Romney look like something he is not... and that something they want him to appear to be is a conservative...
Please do anything you can to help Newt... we all have to beyond words and into action..
Stay Strong!
Well, to hear-tell directly from Mitt and Ann Romney over the past two campaigns (Mitt, Aug/2007 & Ann, Fall, 2011), why the Romneys were supposedly never pro-abortion! Look @ the chart below for Mitt Romney's Aug 2007 interview with Chris Wallace...and Ann Romney's Fall 2011 interview with Parade Magazine:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' | |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” | |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN and support it, and I SUSTAIN and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) | |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
He took very carefully worded positions when he ran of personally being against those things though promising to "support the law." I would not have even tried and played such games with such fundamental issues, but he did and they have resulted in this very understandable problem he has...and deserves... (Jeff Head, post 818)
He did no such thing...Let's look @ the chart above to review what language Romney used when he ran for Senate in 1994:
I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN and support it, and I SUSTAIN and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
Shame, double shame and triple shame upon the integrity of Jeff Head!
He of ALL people SHOULD KNOW how strong of a word it is for Mormons to say they "sustain" something? Why? Because that is the exact word used that Mormon grassroots & leaders are told to act toward their "living 'prophet'" -- to "sustain" him...!!!
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
...though it is clear Romney took liberal positions to get elected governor, and then to govern there, he did change and flip-flop on most of them when running for the GOP nomination. As he would have to. He is saying and supporting most of the right things now... [Jeff Head, post 818)
Romney "flipped" to "pro-life" Nov of 2004;
"flopped" by saying @ a press conference that he was keeping the "status quo" of abortion in MA May of 2005 & followed that up with his taxpayer-funded abortion program & Planned Parenthood open doors of RomneyCare in Spring 2006;
Then he "flipped" "pro-life" again in most of 2007...
...until he "flopped" on the Katie Couric show Dec of '07 -- saying 'twas "OK" for parents to give up their offspring to "research"
Now he's "flipped" for the third time in less than 7.5 years!!!!
You not only can't trust Mitt Romney, you can't trust Mormons like Jeff Head...they'll say anything...
It’s going to get uglier no doubt...there are many “forces” at play so we’re all praying that God’s will will prevail.
Either he’ll lift this nation back up...or he’ll let it fall. The man we choose will make the difference which way this goes....and only Newt has the desire to put this nation back “Under Gods Sovernity” and has stated so.
May the Lord truly hear our prayers and grant Newt renewed strength and wisdom to know where the steps are God would have him go in these weeks ahead...on behalf of this nation and it’s people.
Keep praying. It’s said that God works in mysterious ways. Trust in Him.
I do and thank you for your kind words. I don’t wish ill on anyone on this forum and appreciate the differing views when they are accompanied by reasoning. I have learned plenty and share the anger and frustration. I swore up and down that I would never vote for John McCain 4 years ago prior to him choosing Palin.
No, he is not. That is cult of personality thinking. The enemy is the ideology of leftism. Socialism, communism, Progressivism. 0bungler is just one agent of that ideology among millions. Romney is another.
May 8, NC Primary- voting for Newt, and against gay marriage. A damn good day.
I’ve stoppped listening to Fox awhile ago...then stopped Beck...then Drudge...and now they’re all on the bandwagon...because they have to sell what they stations, producers and owners tell them.
I suspect Savage and others will also jump on in time...making Obama a very happy man.
Now that’s sweet music to my ears!...and no doubt to Gods!
I was listening to NPR yesterday -- something I rarely do (stumbled upon it out driving)...some guy was interviewing a woman...and his question was along the lines that he didn't think Romney's positions were all that starkly distinct from Obama's...
(Now the woman disagreed on that, but even some of the NPR liberals are seeing this clearly: We have two mainstream liberals running for POTUS...where are they going to find enough liberals in this country to vote for either of them?)
Well, he can certainly be quoted, at times, to support that view. (And RomneyCare--which has a great deal in common with ObamaCare, despite some rather subtle differences) adds support to that position.
He can also be quoted to the right of center on the very same issues.
[T]he Romney supporters today (in my state Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties) will carry water for Obama in November.
Wisconsin is the quintessential "swing" state; much as Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa (to name just some) are also.
And although it is certainly true that most people do not cast their votes according to who is at the bottom of the ticket, just enough do take that into consideration to make it appealing for Gov. Romney to select Paul Ryan (if the latter can be persuaded to accept the position). It might just tip the balance, in Wisconsin, to the GOP.
One would be well advised not to jump on the losing team's bandwagon heading toward a foreign field for battle.
Are you suggesting, then, that some third-party candidate is more likely than Mitt Romney to win the presidency in November 2012?
Yup RINO converts...
RINO converts who will forever have to hold their tongue on criticizing socialistic healthcare once they support/vote for Mitt Romney..
They'll have crossed the RINO Waterloo.
Same with abortion and protecting the womb...People w'll have become "pro-choice" like Romney once they support him -- which includes his crazy idea (dec 07) that parents can give up their offspring to "research" -- as he told Katie Couric.
I suspect Savage and others will also jump on in time...making Obama a very happy man.
I don't know if you listened to Mark Levin tonight, but Sarah pretty much endorsed Mitt, also. She cloaked it in some vague words thanking Mark for staying in the fray and fighting even when we didn't get our "First Choice".
She was referring to Levin supporting Romney now. Santorum was Levin's first choice. This is definitely True Colors Time... and is turning out to be very enlightening to say the least...
It will be interesting to see if Sarah honestly comes forward to support Romney before the convention or if she waits while everyone continues to try and damage and minimize Newt and endorses Romney at the convention, like she had no choice. she could have jumped in and helped Newt a whole lot, and still could.
There are so many others. I mean did you ever expect to hear Jim DeMint say he was very excited at the prospect of romney being the nominee...
This is all hurting my heart and my head..
Sure it is. And it's not the only one you've posted on this thread.
You've bought the logic that it's ok to vote for a Socialist, as long as he's got an R behind his name. Just what on earth do you hope to accomplish by voting for the flip side of the same coin?
It’s a great opportunity- to strike a blow for the Lord and crap in the GOP-e swimming pool at the same time.
It is my understanding that New York City has four major parties: the Democratic Party; the Republican Party; the Liberal Party; and the Conservative Party.
In 1965, Buckley ran as the standard-bearer of the Conservative Party, in opposition to the (very liberal--not moderate) John Lindsay.
He’s your model for supporting Romney??
Yes, I believe that the late Mr. Buckley serves as an exemplary model.
He was, in my opinion, the very apotheosis of modern conservatism...
Then came the Contract with America, which got so many GOP candidates elected to congress because they made a promise to get things done. They won the majority after over 40 years of Democrat control. Newt became speaker, and under his leadership, things got done. Big things, like welfare reform and the first balanced budget in decades.
You want to say that Newt is anything but Consevative!.... but you have no idea..... I think you need to go onto his website and read his new “21st Century Contract with America.”.... I’m telling you that he’s like no other GOP candidate in a very long time......
He not only has a chance of beating Romney even at this late stage, but also getting a lot more conservatives elected to congress on the strength of the contract alone..... We could win the Senate and get a larger majority in the House.......
Romney’s not going to do that for us...... It’s more than just the presidency, it’s turning the liberal machine on its head in a major way. That’s what Newt’s agenda has always been and will continue to be if he becomes POTUS.
He’s way better than Palin (although I like her), Santorum, or any of the current GOP field. He’s the seasoned conservative master politician who WILL get it done.... His record on that stands....
Romney will just be a “manager in chief.” Certainly way better than Obama, but without Newt’s vision and record for actually changing Washington. It’s not too late.
(Borrowed) But says what I think.
This is so great, and I just happened upon it in a very long thread. If you think of it, could you add me to any post you do regarding Newt? Not if it's too much trouble, and I know you won't always remember, but I really like and learn alot from your posts..
Stay Strong for Newt!
Considering we are dealing with a communist lethal tyrant like Obama - it’s reality.
do me a favor though - if Romney loses - you need to STFU about anything Bama does over the next four years.
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.