Rick Perry

75 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER GEORGE W. BUSH

August 11, 2011 NewsWithViews.com

By Chuck Baldwin



Last Saturday, Texas Governor Rick Perry unofficially launched his 2012 Presidential candidacy in Houston (in my opinion). Speculation is he will officially announce his intentions this weekend in South Carolina. If he does declare his candidacy, many election-watchers say Perry will become the GOP frontrunner, due to an extremely weak field of declared candidates. If Perry does declare his candidacy, everyone will know that the Houston event was staged for the purpose of launching his Presidential bid, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

If Perry declares his candidacy (and I'm confident he will), people should also realize that the Houston event was a precursor to the type of campaign that Perry will use throughout the Republican primary season. As a fellow Texan, it was not lost on Rick Perry how George W. Bush obtained the Republican nomination--and eventually the White House. In short, Rick Perry is going to use the G.W. Bush model to win a Presidential election.

Think about it: G.W. Bush won the White House after an extremely unpopular liberal Democrat had been President. Barack Obama's popularity is even lower than Bill Clinton's was--and Clinton was only the second President in US history to ever be impeached! Bush's campaign boss, Karl Rove, brilliantly painted G.W. Bush as being a wholesome "born again Christian," which played very well with a Christian electorate that was tired of being embarrassed by a lying, philandering reprobate living in the White House.

In 2012, the American electorate, especially the Christian electorate, is totally fed up with an incumbent President whom everyone knows to be extremely sympathetic to Muslim and Marxist ideologies. Plus, a sizeable percentage of the American people truly suspect that Obama was NOT born in the United States and is, therefore, not even qualified to be President. This is the stage upon which Rick Perry appears. It is a stage very similar to the one George W. Bush stepped onto in 2000. And just as Bush played the "born again Christian" card to the max in the 2000 Presidential campaign, so Rick Perry appears to be ready to do in 2012. That is what the Houston event was all about last Saturday.

Billed as "A Day of Prayer and Fasting," the event solidified Perry's preferred status among evangelical Christians. With the help of the American Family Association (which reportedly contributed up to a million dollars to the event), James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and Cornerstone Church's (San Antonio) Pastor John Hagee, Perry is all but assured of cornering the "born again" vote, just as G.W. Bush did in 2000.

One would like to think that America's Christians learned something from the two GWB administrations, but it doesn't appear that they have. I think it is safe to say that Dobson, Hagee, et al, would endorse ANYONE nominated by the Republican Party. They have already proven that, have they not? James Dobson went so far as to humiliate himself by endorsing big government John McCain in the 2008 general elections, even after vowing publicly that he would "NEVER" support McCain. During the primaries, however, the Republican candidate who can "talk the Bible" the best can expect the support of these clueless evangelical leaders. And this time around, it appears that Rick Perry is that man. You can rest assured if Perry doesn't win the nomination, Dobson and Hagee will be right there for whoever does.

.

For the record, I invite anyone out there who still labors under the delusion that George W. Bush presided over some kind of "born again" Christian administration to check out the vast amounts of information I have compiled on my web site that exposes Bush as being just another big government elitist, who did as much (or more) to strip America of its God-given liberties as any other President in history.

See the record here

Furthermore, even cursory research will uncover the fact that the Bush and Clinton families have long collaborated together in criminal activity on a massive scale--activity that, in all likelihood, continues to this very day. (I still say, don't be surprised if Obama dumps Joe Biden as his Vice President and puts Hillary Clinton on the ticket before next year's elections.)

Of course, G.W. Bush was never held accountable by evangelical Christian voters for his unconstitutional conduct. All they cared about was Bush's Christian rhetoric. And it does appear that is all they care about today. As a result, Rick Perry will prove to be a formidable candidate in the GOP primaries.

Advertisement

180x110-iosoliodine_nwv.gif

I have said over and over again that I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States! The pious rhetoric of political candidates means nothing!

If I hire a plumber to fix a drainage problem at my house, I am not interested so much in where he goes to church, or whether he teaches Sunday School, or what denomination he claims. I am hiring him to fix my plumbing! We sign a contract, he and I. I promise to pay him "X" amount of dollars, and he promises that when he's finished, my toilets will flush. Christian or not, I expect him to honor the terms of his contract.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we elect a civil magistrate (at any level), we are entering into a contract with the one we elected. We gave them our support, which allowed them to obtain public office, and they promise (before Almighty God) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They do not promise to be "good Christians." They do not promise to be "good Republicans." They do not promise to be "good conservatives." They take an oath before God (they sign a contract with the American people) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it is our job as citizens to hold our civil magistrates to their oath! In fact, if any elected office holder were a TRUE Christian, he or she would take their oath even more seriously, would they not?

Instead of being excited about a candidate claiming to be a Christian, or claiming to pray and read his or her Bible, we need to get excited about a candidate who is serious about preserving the liberties of the American people, and who makes a commitment to protect and preserve the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution!

Before we talk about Rick Perry's commitment to prayer and fasting, let's find out if Rick Perry believes that there must be a Declaration of War before America begins invading, bombing, and occupying foreign countries. Let's find out if he believes he has the authority as President to use US military forces against American citizens. Let's find out if he believes he has the authority to give billions and trillions of dollars away to foreign countries. Let's find out if he plans to commit US military forces to the whims of the United Nations Security Council. Let's find out if he supports the Military Commissions Act. Let's find out if he supports the Patriot Act. Let's find out if he believes the US government has the authority to use super-computers and advanced technology to continue to turn the United States into a giant surveillance-society. Let's find out how serious he is about closing that southern border: speaking of which, what did Rick Perry do as governor of the border State of Texas to stop illegal immigration? And while we are on the subject of Border States, what did Rick Perry do to stop the NAFTA superhighway? Before we get excited about Rick Perry being a "good Christian," let's find out if he supports the Council of Governors, or the North American Union, or the Continuity of Government, or Agenda 21. Let's find out if Perry will launch a Justice Department investigation into the ATF's (under Barack Obama and Eric Holder) clandestine operation of providing firearms to Mexican drug gangs. We could go on and on with these kinds of questions.

shop-btn-anim.gif

The sad truth is, our illustrious evangelical leaders on the right are just as culpable in the dismantling and deterioration of the American republic as are those on the political or religious left! Both sides are willing to give their favored politicos a pass on constitutional governance. And ladies and gentlemen, that is why it hasn't mattered to a tinker's dam whether a Democrat or Republican, "liberal" or "conservative" is in the White House! And that's why it won't matter in 2012.


Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:



Besides, if James Dobson and John Hagee were truly interested in protecting and preserving the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, they would be promoting the candidacy of Ron Paul. But, unfortunately, they wouldn't do it in 2008, and they won't do it in 2012. They lack both the courage and the sagacity.

We don't need another George W. Bush in the White House. For that matter, we don't need another Jimmy Carter in the White House. What we need is a President (governor, mayor, sheriff, etc.) who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have said over and over again that I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States! The pious rhetoric of political candidates means nothing!


ABSOLUTELY!!!

I do believe Michele Bachmann would uphold the Constitution, as well as Cain. Some of the others, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post




ABSOLUTELY!!!

I do believe Michele Bachmann would uphold the Constitution, as well as Cain. Some of the others, though...

Ron Paul would be the only other one I could think of who would take his oath seriously.

I thought of you, LuAnne, when I read that article and knew I had to post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have found that lately I want ANYONE in the presidency other than President Obama. I know it's the flesh taking hold but I have a hard time even caring who is the GOP nominee, as long as he/she can beat Pres. Obama. :casse-mur-briques:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dennis, I hear you! I think there are a good lot of people who feel the same way. Just about anyone who is running right now would be better, to a certain degree, than BO. Romney, however, makes my teeth hurt. He's good on economics, to a degree, but Romneycare still bothers me. Granted, states are (supposed to be) sovereign and can be socialist if that's what the people of the state want. But the fact that he signed into law the same type of "healthcare" that BO pushed through is troubling. There are other issues with him, as well, but that's the biggest.

John - I don't care for Ron Paul anymore. He cites the Constitution for many things, with which I agree, but there are things I just don't like about him (not the least of which is legalizing marijuana...I know it's not the feds place to stop marijuana from growing in states - that's state responsibility. But neither does the fed have the right to legalize it...)! I think he would take his oath seriously. But I know MB would, as well - she has proven that during her time in congress. HCain sounds good - having never held office before, though, we'd have to see if he means what he says. He knows business, and he knows economics, so I think he'd be good.

I won't be able to see the debate tonight. Is anyone else watching them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dennis, I hear you! I think there are a good lot of people who feel the same way. Just about anyone who is running right now would be better, to a certain degree, than BO. Romney, however, makes my teeth hurt. He's good on economics, to a degree, but Romneycare still bothers me. Granted, states are (supposed to be) sovereign and can be socialist if that's what the people of the state want. But the fact that he signed into law the same type of "healthcare" that BO pushed through is troubling. There are other issues with him, as well, but that's the biggest. John - I don't care for Ron Paul anymore. He cites the Constitution for many things, with which I agree, but there are things I just don't like about him (not the least of which is legalizing marijuana...I know it's not the feds place to stop marijuana from growing in states - that's state responsibility. But neither does the fed have the right to legalize it...)! I think he would take his oath seriously. But I know MB would, as well - she has proven that during her time in congress. HCain sounds good - having never held office before, though, we'd have to see if he means what he says. He knows business, and he knows economics, so I think he'd be good. I won't be able to see the debate tonight. Is anyone else watching them?


Yes, I have the same thoughts on Romney and Paul as you do which is why I feel like beating my head against the wall. I remember we've talked about this in the past...it seems as if we are forced many times (forced as in letting the flesh win) to vote for the lesser evil. I hope one of the GOP members like Cain and/or Bachman can stand above Romney but not sure. And honestly, I'm not all that positive on either one of them but time will tell.

I'll probably try to watch the debate tonight if I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Actually, MC and HCain are above Romney in most polls. The "front-runner" status was bestowed upon him by the media simply due to the fact that he ran last time. He was nowhere near the front-runner last time, so...

Rick Perry is due to announce, and many believe that he will be front-runner. I don't trust him - not because he's "like dubya," but because there are things he's done that are wrong (like signing into law that illegals can get tuition at TX colleges. That was 2001, but he still did it). His wife is a nurse, and the daughter of a doctor, so, if he runs, the emphasis will be on BOcare, and on the economy, since TX has the best job rate in the country....He'd be better than BO, because he does believe strongly in state's rights, and we need a return to observing the 10th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


Actually, MC and HCain are above Romney in most polls. The "front-runner" status was bestowed upon him by the media simply due to the fact that he ran last time. He was nowhere near the front-runner last time, so...

Rick Perry is due to announce, and many believe that he will be front-runner. I don't trust him - not because he's "like dubya," but because there are things he's done that are wrong (like signing into law that illegals can get tuition at TX colleges. That was 2001, but he still did it). His wife is a nurse, and the daughter of a doctor, so, if he runs, the emphasis will be on BOcare, and on the economy, since TX has the best job rate in the country....He'd be better than BO, because he does believe strongly in state's rights, and we need a return to observing the 10th amendment.


What do you mean by "most polls"? I've yet to see one that has anyone above Romney. Sure, I'm looking at media polls but what others are there that really matter? Gallup and Rasmussen? They are basically media polls with the way they work nowadays. Matter a fact, I believe the last Gallup Poll had Romney #1 in every area of the US except the south.

I don't want him to be President but in the sense of either Pres. Obama or Romney...I would reluctantly select Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm sorry, I should have put "straw" in there. I know they aren't true polls, but I do believe they are more accurate than most media polls.

Zogby, in June, had MB ahead, with MR and HCain tied (in May Cain was ahead tied in Zogby). The whole problem I have with media polls is that I've never met anyone who's polled - so how can that be a true representation of voters?

Rasmussen yesterday:

For the fifth week in a row, a generic Republican candidate edges President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up.
Romney is running even with BO, when GOP is named. http://www.rasmussen...idential_ballot Gallup has BO ahead of a generic candidate. Polls aren't really indicators.

But I do agree, he would be better in the White House than BO...at least, I hope so. :coffee2: He's good on most issues. But his view on healthcare has changed since 2008 (he thought mandating was good, as well as universal coverage good), and he's wishy-washy on guns. Both areas in which the fed has two many fingers in the pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ahh, yes...that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not in the US, so it's none of my business, really. From a biographical point of view, isn't Gov. Perry the one who talked about Texas seceding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


I'm not in the US, so it's none of my business, really. From a biographical point of view, isn't Gov. Perry the one who talked about Texas seceding?

That's been covered in another thread already, via a question you already posted....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'll probably watch the debates tonight. Hopefully some of the candidates will actually say something worthwhile instead of just the same old things. It would also be good if they put forth some real ideas and plans rather than trying to elevate themselves by knocking down the other candidates or even Obama. Nothing wrong with pointing out the differences between them, but do more than say "Obama wrecked the economy, I'll do better". Tell us HOW you will do better, give some details, some plans.

Ron Paul won't get the nomination. Michele Bachman will face great media attacks (more-so) if she does well in Iowa and liberals and others will unload on her too.

One sad thing is the GOP today is where it was in 2008. Most are looking for someone perfect, and they all have different views of what that means, so they are not content with the candidates available and constantly looking for "someone else". If Rick Perry jumps in it's likely his poll numbers will skyrocket and the poll numbers for some of the more solid candidates could fall. Then, how long before the truth of Perry comes out and many fall from him too, leaving the GOP very divided as in 2008.

From listening to the media it's clear who they and liberals want to win the GOP nomination and who they want to keep out at all costs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I enjoyed listening to Santorum last night. While there are some things I agree with Ron Paul about, there is just something there that seems "weasaly" and I can't get that out of my head. Didn't watch the whole thing but bits and pieces throughout. I did like at least some of every candidate, still undecided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I watched the entire debate. It seemed Cain, Bachmann and Paul had the most substantive things to say. Those there were also the only ones who would likely give a real challenge and a real fight to the status quo.

In typical fashion I've noticed much of the press trying to build up Romney and Gingrich as either being the winners or "most presidential" (just what does that mean?) . Neither was impressive. Romney was stuck on his same old points and obviously uncomfortable when faced with the truth of his record (both in government and the private sector) and did his best to make a dodge of those. Gingrich was obviously upset about questions regarding his own statements and how his campaing has gone yet he kept dropping the name of Reagan and trying to tie himself to Reagan.

Santorum had some good points but he revealed he's too willing to compromise.

Pawlenty seemed to be more concerned with attacking Bachmann than anything else. His arguments against Bachmann were very weak and made him look petty. He also didn't seem comfortable when confronted with some of his record either.

Huntsman seemed most proud of his record but beyond perhaps holding to some conservative fiscal principles he seems more like a Dem than a Repub.

Cain was well-spoken, had some very good points, but was not provided much time to speak. Paul made some good points too but the uneducated electorate would likely not understand even his reference points which means for many his good message will be lost. Bachmann presented good principles and pointed to a clear contrast between herself and Obama. The other five candidates were mostly the same old politicians that got us in the mess we are in already.

I understand the desire to get the candidates to interact but I didn't care for the questions which specifically asked a candidate to confront another one on a specific issue. That was unnecessary and unfair because such was only directed towards some, but not all of the candidates.

Overall it was a much better debate than many turn out to be.

Still, I would like to see a real debate without the ridiculous 1 minute to respond and 30 second rebuttals, where candidates can actually articulate a proper answer and present plans and ideas with much more clarity and specificity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ron Paul turns me off because I believe he panders to Democrats more than anyone there. While I agree with him on getting out of places and just keeping our noses out of certain affairs of the world. I do not agree with him we should have any relationship with countries who harbor terrorist or who kill/arrest people because they proclaim the Gospel, etc. Now, if the relationship means we act as a beacon and/or model of religous freedom and civil rights than ok but anything more is kind of sickening to me. And I think Santorum is right when he said Paul would accept Polygamy in the states because it's up to the states. Paul thinks this is so far out there and I completely disagree, I'm sure that in my lifetime we'll see a state allow polygamy or animal marriage or some other disgusting perverted "marriage". Not sure where Paul stands on abortion, but being a Libertarian I'm assuming he is Pro-choice....could be a bad assumption. Maybe he is "Pro-Life" in his personal stance but wouldn't "push" that on anyone else.

And I don't know about Santorum compromising, he seemed very firm in his convictions especially with taxes and abortion.

I liked Cain too, he sounded good. I don't think they gave enough time to Cain or Santorum (except maybe closer to the end).

I also agree about the press and Romney and Gingrich. I don't think Romney did anything in this debate, it was a weak show. The only thing I thought was good about Gingrich is he kept getting angry at the media haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Interesting summation. Thanks. I heard a quite different view of the debate this morning, though. The pundit I heard was saying that he felt Bachmann did not do as well as she did in the last debate. He said she seemed kind of dazed, and that she was incorrect in much of what she leveled at TPaw. Now, this pundit is a conservative, and does not like Romney, so he wasn't the typical media reactionary.

He also said that TPaw diminished himself because of his attackes on MB, since she is a woman.

As to RPaul - he mentioned that the audience booed Paul. One of the things that Paul is getting wrong is that he is speaking to people who love our troops, and the way he words things sounds too much like Kucinech and anti-troop. Whether or not he is right isn't even the point. As to his mention of the gold standard, there wasn't enough time to really make what he was saying comprehensible to the listeners.

Dennis, RPaul does believe the Constitution limits the federal government in ways that we have not witnessed in our lifetime. He is right in many areas, even though we might find it repugnant. The reason for that is that the government system is secular, not religious. That being so, we cannot simply say a law must be made federal because the Bible says so. The system was set up for states to be sovereign - and they can do anything they want, really, other than what the federal Constitution limits them to (which is great reason NOT to add any amendments in this climate!). That would include polygamy, marijuana, gay marriage, healthcare, etc. It is foreign to us because we don't always understand how our founders set up the Republic. But it also needs to be remembered that our country was founded on the principles of God's Word. The citizenry was moral then. Even the non-Christians. So issues like polygamy and gay marriage wouldn't even be considered back then.

He is anti-abortion. I do believe he would be for the repeal of Roe v. Wade because that is an unconstitutional decision, legislating from the bench, which is not supposed to be done. However, it would, again, be up to the individual states, and should be.

That said, I don't like RPaul anymore, and don't want to see him as POTUS. But, if it were between him and Romney, or him and BO, I'd choose Paul.

RPerry is getting into the run. And I do believe he will eclipse MRomney. He's got many good points. But he has some serious problems, too, that need to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I realize Paul is a smart fellow and very smart in the constitution. I understand the small gov't and states having the leeway to make laws on their own and I agree with that. But, I do think there should be some exceptions (Federal Law stating marriage between a man and a woman is something I just believe we should do). Whether that actually follows the republic model doesn't really matter to me. I don't want gov't telling us everything we should do or telling the states everything to do but I do think there should be some things they tell the states to do and that would be one thing. Abortion illegal would be another for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Defense of Marriage Act is already a law, and is the reason that RPaul won't support an amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I understand your sentiment, but do not agree with you. Thinking that the federal government has the right to decide anything for the states that is not expressly allowed in the Constitution is one of the reasons that we are in such a mess right now. The feds have taken over areas that they have no right in, such as education. And education has been a vehicle that has been used to spread the lies that abortion is okay, gay marriage okay, and basically whatever the fed wants to purport is okay. We can't have it both ways...


Here's a good article on the debate...

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/08/12/santorum-and-obama-two-peas-in-a-pod/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, that's an article that seems one sided. Not really a debate on the issue.

Maybe I'm not understanding the issue fully but here is my simple take. To me, passing a law requiring health care for everyone and passing a law forbidding marriage to animals is completely different.

I'm in no way well versed in the Constitution so that could be the issue. States are not allowed to pass laws saying murder is ok, correct? And states are not allowed to pass a law that states you have to be 21 and over to vote, correct? But states are allowed to say homosexual marriage is allowed in their state. Are states allowed to raise their speed limit to whatever they want? I would assume they are allowed. What's the difference then in allowing a state to run amok vice the feds? The only difference I guess is you can move out of your state easier than you can move out of your country.

It's hard for me to believe that the federal government can't have certain limitations in place. Give the states leeway to make laws up to a certain point where it doesn't get out of hand. I see the slippery slope in this but they are our representatives and should be held accountable. It just seems that if there is no limitation than the states can't be held accountable and can pass ridiculous laws and how are the people protected? By voting out the state representatives? Is that it? Because voting out Barack Obama isn't going to make the repeal of DADT null and void.

If a state passes a law that is so ridiculous but nothing can be done about it...what happens then? We live with this ridiculous law? Or is that when these things can be repealed to higher and higher courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, basically. Telling the states to have healthcare and telling the states abortion is illegal are the same? If we allow one we open the chance of the other becoming mandated as well?

Very confusing to me that there are some instances where the federal govt tells the state what to do and in others it doesn't. I can't understand the line here, it's very blurry for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

States are to be sovereign, Dennis. Even if they make mistakes or bad laws. The people of the state then change them. It isn't up to Illinois to tell Indiana what to do, etc. And the 10th amendment was put into the Constititution (as well as the 9th) as a protection of that very fact. Because our founders understood that government is a fearful master, and if an inch is given, a mile is taken. BO is such a grand example of that.

For many years, our federal government has chosen to ignore much of the Constitution, and many people have grown up ignorant of the Constitution and believing that it is the fed's responsibility to guide the states. That is absolutely backward. Completely!! (and it really began to take root when Abraham Lincoln decided that he had the right, as POTUS, to interfere in state issues because he deemed them morally wrong).

We are Christians. And we would love to see a Christian POTUS. That is true. And then would we cheer if he made decisions supra-Constitutional as BO has done? Some would, because he's a Christian, and the Bible says.....

But. What is a muslim was elected? (and, no, although he is very sympatico to them, I don't believe BO is a muslim...he is a black liberation theology subscriber - not the same thing). Then, Christians would have no room to say but, but, but he can't DO that because the Constitution forbids it...because their POTUS did the same thing, only for good.

Our founders set up a secular government on purpose (they did it in a Christian nation, which was a miracle then and still is...), to be led by the law: the Constitution. As followed, states are sovereign.

Actually, states are allowed to decide the death penalty. If there is no death penalty, even if a murderer is jailed for life, that's tacitly saying it's okay: because then the murderer gets to live off the tax payer...and even come up for parole after 15 years. Whew, didn't know life was only 15 years long...So, in effect, those states that don't have the death penalty do okay murder. And, yes, it is their decision.

The federal government does have responsibilities as relates to interstate commerce, etc. Those responsibilities are laid out in the Constitution. Many in the fed declare that the 14th amendment allows things that it does not (and so it should actually be repealed), thus giving them more power over the states (actually them taking it...).

As to the one sided article - it is from the Tenth Amendment Center, and their primary concern is the 10th amendment. If we could get that back into actual practice, a lot of things would be better.

Dennis, there are not many states that would okay polygamy. Or gay marriage at this point. (and if we could wrest control of education out of the hands of the feds, we could locally begin to discourage that kind of thing...) But if they do, that is their choice. I know, that doesn't sound very Christian...but we do not live in a theocracy for one big reason: Who would decide who is right or wrong? Yes, we know the Bible does. BUT! The Bible isn't always looked at for answers, and we know how often even IFB disagree amongst themselves. So, who would decide? Whoever had the power. And therein lies the problem. Because there are Christians who believe we should return to the days of the Puritans. No liberty there. Baptists were tortured, as were others who dared to express an opinion different from what the leaders believed. No, that's what our Baptist forebears fought against! (read about Obadiah Holmes...he had his blood shed (by Puritan church leaders - as they beat him for being a Baptist, for not accepting infant baptism) for religious liberty 100 (or so) years before the fight for political liberty.

The Constitution is not the Bible. It was never intended to be. It was intended to preserve the liberty of American citizens so they could live out their lives without governmental intrusion on the level of what happened to our forefathers with Britain. States are supposed to be sovereign, and until we get back to following that, we will not have freedom and liberty like we used to (of course, I know that Christians need to get right with God, too...).

I would encourage you to study the Constitution, Dennis. It takes maybe 45 minutes (for a slow reader) to just simply read through it. Get a copy of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Read them (they are letters written by those who were in favor of the Constitution and those against it...both have very good points and are vital to understand the thought processes of our founders) and you will find a wealth of information! And look into the Tenth Amendment Center. They, as I said, are all about the 10th amendment, but understanding state sovereignty and the role of the federal govt hinges on understanding what the 10th amendment actually is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've heard many pundits try to spin the debates. It's interesting how much most want to tarnish Bachmann and in some cases Paul, but how quick many are to build up Romney and Gingrich.

There was only one time when there was a possible boo from the crowed toward Paul but the rest of those making noise were cheering. I don't recall Bachmann or Cain receiving any boo's.

Bachmann seemed well poised and gave good replies to attacks. During the time when someone, mostly Pawlenty, was attacking her she stood there looking ahead with a neutral look upon her face. I imagine she was trying not to look bothered, trying to listen to the charges and prepare her rebuttal but I can see how some might have thought that during those times she many have looked "dazed", but I didn't see it that way. Her responses were too solid for her to have been dazed.

Chris Wallace asked a question trying to get Pawlenty and Bachmann into a head-to-head which is what began the back and forth between these two. For a brief moment I thought Pawlenty might rise above such, as he gave a short and good anwer to Chris without addressing Bachmann, then after a brief pause he launched into Bachmann in what seemed like too personal of a manner. I do believe Pawlenty would have served himself, and the GOP, better had he stuck with his initial comment and ended there without attacking Bachmann.

Newt tried to sound tough and intellectual but remembering all his similar talk in the 90s and then his lack of action afterwards it's difficult to take him seriously now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe Newt is a very smart man, yet I feel Washington would be better off if he had never been there, of course the same thing can be said about most of them, just take a look at the trouble they have us in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


I believe Newt is a very smart man, yet I feel Washington would be better off if he had never been there, of course the same thing can be said about most of them, just take a look at the trouble they have us in.

I agree. He's very smart, but he's not very grounded and when in office he failed to put up real fights for conservative issues and was too quick to compromise. In his personal life he keeps leaving his wives when they get older and hooking up with younger women. He also converted to Catholicism because he thinks it's purer and more true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now