Posted on 07/17/2012 3:30:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
As Alan Keyes wrote the other day, you cannot fight evil with evil.
If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor:
A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub (FR thread)
Brief excerpt:
I grieve deeply as I contemplate the fact that millions of Americans are letting themselves be caught in this diabolical snare. As I tried to point out in 2008, the lesser of evils is still evil. No matter how such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.
I’m morally certain this is why Christ admonished his disciples to make striving for God’s perfection the standard for their actions, rather than their hatred of evil. He thought it better to fail reaching for this standard than succeed by abandoning one’s life to the devil’s dominion. He thought it better to fail in the world’s eyes while commending one’s spirit to God (as he does on the cross) than succeed by casting one’s lot with God’s adversary.
--Alan Keyes
A man who for over 30 years of his adult life by his own admission justified the wholesale slaughter of innocent and helpless human life is purely evil and can and did justify anything. Many times.
Romney's entire political life has been a mis-adventure into godless liberal/progressive evil. There can be no denying that he has during his tenure either advocated for or personally enacted nearly the entire godless liberal/progressive agenda. He has succeeded where the Democrats have failed and he has shown them the way. His record of evil leftist doings, rationalizing, justifying, flip-flopping and mealy-mouthed parsing and spinning (lying) precedes him and tells the tale of the man. He has no foundation. No core principles. No Christian values. No moral compass. If ever a man was a godless liberal in the GOP, he is Myth Romney.
If the Republican conservatives in office or in leadership positions or in the so-called conservative media would simply stop rooting for this evil bastard and commit to the TRUTH and stand tall for Life and Liberty now and at the convention, we could chuck this liberal bastard onto the ash heap of history and run a pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-small government conservative Republican that we can all be proud to support over the Marxist usurper. And we would WIN in a Reaganesque landslide!!
Perversely, Romney is just about the only Republican who may actually lose to Obama. Hell, even McCain beat Romney.
Taking the right path is not easy and not popular at this time, but it's the only path.
May we stand on God's side while attempting to save our Republic!!
You claimed that Romney signed a permanent GUN ban.
What he signed was an "assault weapons" ban. It did not ban: revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, or most categories of rifles. But okay, chief. If you want, I'll agree to your terminology. Romney obviously did sign a bill that banned some guns and he was wrong to do so, no matter what his rationale. Banning some guns is not the same thing as banning "all" guns, but it's still wrong and obviously we agree on that.
Now, you have chosen to focus on this particular issue to avoid having to answer my original statement to you in which I accused you of telling lies about Romney. I was not just talking about guns - you made other questionable statements, including:
"Obamacare is the same thing as Romneycare, just nationwide".
FALSE - Obamacare is vastly more intrusive and complex and involves the creation of hundreds of new bureaucracies and thousands of new regulations. Romneycare was a model of simplicity by comparison. It still sucks. But it is a far cry from what Obama has done.
"Mittens gave Massachusetts homosexual marriage".
FALSE. - The Courts did that. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. The court gave the Mass. legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its ruling. Governor Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents married same-sex partners from having their marriage recognized by the federal government. In 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional. In May 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling, finding DOMA unconstitutional, but stayed enforcement of the decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court.
"The Founders had lots to say about homosexuals."
LOL. Really? I don't recall that from my repeated readings of Madison and Hamilton's Federalist Papers or John Adams' diaries or Thomas Jefferson's essays, or Patrick Henry's speeches, or George Washington's letters. Sorry. I must have missed their key insights on that issue.
Andy.
You said that Romney didn’t ban guns.
Romney banned “assault weapons” which are, drumroll, guns!
So where is the lie?
Tell me again how a gun ban is NOT a gun ban?
Your refusal to engage in argumentation in favor of pointless sophistry makes any further comment on my part unnecessary.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on homosexuality.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw110081%29%29
“At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin28 of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; “
George Washington Courts Martial of Lt Enslin for homosexuality.
Translation: Andy got caught with the facts not in his favor.
The question is : “ WHAT is the replacement,” and not “ - - - who is the replacement?”
Right now we are looking at the problem of the Socialist/Communist Surge as a top-down problem: Who will ride in on a White Horse and save us, so we can go back to voting in more Entitlements for ourselves?
Choose the values that you want first, (=bottom-up), and solve the problem from the bottom up.
I listed two men whose demonstrated values would solve the problem.
What helpful demonstrated values do you find in other Republican potential Nominees?
It is a short list, but give it a go anyway - - - .
Anyone can miscast an issue.
In this case being an Other voter you have left Obama/Romney a tie when Obama could have been overwhelmed by 1 vote.
Hopefully, you are now done banging your spoon on your high chair.
Funny, I’m not the one who got caught lying.
I can see why Andy is calling your remarks sophistry.
Even a “scary gun ban” is a gun ban, but this is like calling an anti-foie-gras policy a food ban.
A gun ban on any gun is still a gun ban.
And I suppose the National Electrical Code is an electrical wiring ban?
Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College, said that “the deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor….and if it is countdown for marriage…it is also countdown for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken… Robert Bork, who was somehow persuaded to endorse Romney, back in his more alert years described the Goodridge decision as being “completely untethered from the state and Federal constitutions and from the rule of law.”
Dr. Herb Titus: “Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney to justify the former Massachusetts Governor’s decision to implement the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that declared that the exclusion of otherwise qualified same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution. After the debate, Mr. Romney stated to Mr. Santorum that he did all that he legally could to stop the implementation of the court’s decision before he exercised his duty as Governor to enforce the court’s decision requiring local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He issued a challenge to Mr. Santorum to find any qualified legal authority that would not agree with him. I have been asked to meet that challenge. I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I am an active member of the Virginia bar and the bar of a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. As a professor of constitutional law for nearly 30 years in four different ABA-approved law schools, and as a practicing lawyer, I have written a number of scholarly articles and legal briefs on a variety of constitutional subjects; including the nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers and the constitutional separation of those powers. I am generally familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution, and especially familiar with that constitution’s provision dictating that no department shall exercise the powers that belong to either of the other two departments “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons. First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court. Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything. Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act. Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing. Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments. "Professor Scott Fitzgibbon of Boston College Law School wrote that the Goodridge decision “did not mandate that the executive branch issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.” Constitutional scholar Herb Titus said that Romney “exercised illegal legislative authority” and added “there was no order. There wasn’t even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything.” Matt Staver, Dean of Liberty Law School, said that Romney “went out and ordered to licenses to be changed, and if fact, that’s not his duty. His duty was to abide by the legislature….the governor actually participated, in my opinion, in advancing same-sex marriage.”
Can you purchase a semi-auto in Massachussetts?
No?
Then it is a gun ban.
Same info:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/pres_files/Romneyflier.pdf
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html
What they banned were semi-autos.
And there is no Amendment in the Enumerated Rights to protect wiring.
Your example is false.
I can’t wire with Romex in this county. Wah! It’s an electrical wiring ban!
Use an example that is comparable.
Otherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest.
And it appears that you are in favor of incremental gun bans.
Great plan, Einstein.
I no longer believe that, the results of the 2008 election woke me up to the fact that the parasites now outnumber the producers. Those with a slave mentality outnumber those who would prefer to live free. The acquence to obama's shredding the Constitution, the passage of obamacare has reinforced this belief.
I guess to be totally fair you’d have to compare it to what went before.
It’s as if it used to be a homeowner couldn’t wire at all. Electricians had to be called. Then they changed the code. You can’t use Romex, but if you, Joe Homeowner, can wire with conduit feel free. Didn’t something like this happen in Mass.? Romney opened up ownership to things like rifles and pistols by appeasing the police unions about semi-autos?
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.