NRLC endorses Thompson

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:59 am Post subject: NRLC endorses Thompson

The largest and most influential anti abortion advocacy group the National Right to Life Committee gave its endorsement to Fred Thompson giving him a much needed boost in his campaign. This comes shortly after the buffoon Pat Robertson gave his endorsement to pro-gay, pro-illegal, anti gun Guliani.

Is anyone feeling cheated?

The presidential campaigns got an early start I suspect to head of the "Campaign Finance Reform" law written by the fascists McCain and Feingold, and signed into law by our ne'er-do-well president Bush. This law prohibits such endorsements, or the publishing of any politician's voting record for 60 days before an election. In other words, the Constitution of the United States is suspended for a short time and free speech and freedom of the press is suppressed by an unconstitutional law.

Since politicians swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I believe that on Judgement day they will be judged not only by the laws of God, but also by the very Constitution they pledged their loyalty to. That's what happens when an oath is made and the words "so help me God" are uttered.....all of eternity is hinges on the fulfillment of that oath.

But back on topic. There are absolutely no Republican candidates at this point that would keep me from voting for my party, the Libertarians. None of them inspire hope. None of them rise to the top. The two leading candidates McCain and Guliani are both pro-choice and there is absolutely no circumstance under which I will vote for a baby killer. But these are the only defense we have against the Wicked Witch of the East who will likely be our next president.

Is anyone else as disappointed as I am?

Dominus tecum

45degreeN · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:40 am Post subject:

Would you vote for someone sight un seen just because they are libertarian? Seems like many of the members of the other parties who do the same.

Voting libertarian will ensure Hillary the office since libertarians primarily take votes votes away from the more conservative Republicans.

Since when is NRLC a libertarian cause? Most libertarians would not agree with this particular point of view. The mainstream libertarian will give freedom to choose not erase any chance, (even of abortion). So I'm guessing you're not a mainstream libertarian.

I do agree with you on not voting for any of the above candidates none of them appeal to me but I dont see many candidates that I can agree with so at this time I am stuck I guess.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:05 am Post subject:

45,

Libertarians disagree on a lot of things, but we are most agreed on the size and scope that government has a natural right to, which is far exceeded by this government, as well as Republican visions of "limited government". Many Libertarians are pro-life, extending our sacred constitutional rights to the unborn, not as if assuming they didn't already possess those rights.

As you can probably guess, I'm hoping for a Republican candidate that inspires hope in me. I don't believe in the argument that if I don't vote for the Republican candidate, I'm helping Hillary Clitler to win. It's precisely that argument that has preserved the 2 party system and has produced our current predicament.......limited choices.

And beside, I live in Idaho which will invariably give its electoral votes to the Republican candidate, so my vote counts for nothing anyway.

45degreeN · Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:26 am Post subject:

Our two party system is anchored in the congressional committee system and the ways power is doled out there. Any third party president now would have so little support in congress simply because some other party would run the congressional agenda. They would control which bill are voted on and who gets to be speaker of the house etc.
Secondarily the methods of deciding the congressional boundaries have been gerrymandered to protect the incumbent to the point that hardly any turnover occurs anyway.

Even if I dont like it the two party system looks like it is here to stay. Making any third party incredibly unlikely to gain power anymore.

My sentiments are set on those libertarians though.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com

45degreeN · Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:26 am Post subject:

Oh another thing is the libertarians themselves are so diverse a group that they do hold contradictory points of view and yet remain a party.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:54 am Post subject:

Yep, I'm one of those "extreme" Libertarians....but Thomas Jefferson would have thought me downright moderate.

I believe public education should be scrapped, social security phased out, no welfare, or unemployment insurance, or farm subsidies, or medicare. I have this strange notion that these responsibilities belong to us individually.

I also don't believe in helmet or seat belt laws, or any law the precludes personal responsibility. Adults tell children "you can't do this for your own good" but that doesn't mean that adults can continue to be treated like children by their government. The founders never saw government in the "parental" role....quite the opposite...the people were the parents.

Which is why I also believe in decriminalizing drug use. I say decriminalize as opposed to legalize because legalization seems to confer a right, whereas decriminalization just says it's not against the law, but employers, landlords, etc can discriminate against you based on your use of drugs. I believe that decriminalization should be accompanied by a full responsibility law...that one is completely at fault for anything they do under the influence of drugs.

Do you know that most of the women incarcerated are there because of drug use? We make criminals out of those who are not criminals. Those men who go to prison just for using drugs are exposed to real criminals and often enter a life of crime as a result. We spend countless millions locking people up who have committed no crime (if crime were viewed only as deliberately causing damage to one's community) and the problem never gets fixed.

I think what we have right now is way too much like the socialist model, and we're already paying a hefty price for it....too much for my liking.

Saint Michael the archangel, patron saint of Fort Bragg and the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division, defend our soldiers in battle. Amen.

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:56 am Post subject:

oops! submitted twice

Embarassed