Yes and this is what we heard in 2008, and also when Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were elected. What has happened since then? On par spending with the liberals. Pointless wars which have sent thousands of Americans to die for false information (not to mention the innocents caught in the crossfire). Babies are still being murdered in the thousands. Conservatism is dying because we keep picking more moderates who lose. Yeah we're doing great. Republicans have created the hyper-liberal element, and it will continue to get worse as they create more dissatisfaction. It is illogical to say we need moderation so we can get back to conservatism. It does NOT work. I'm tired of hearing that myth spouted over and over and over when it is been so clearly proven wrong.
Romney needs to pack his bags and get lost. He's not going to defeat Obama. The Republicans are just going to repeat 2008. When will they learn no one likes moderates? Who keeps voting for these clowns in the primaries? I don't know anyone who likes Romney and can't see how he ended up getting any votes at all. It makes no sense to me. I think most of the folks who bother voting in the primaries are Republican shills and those who fail to see the big picture. That is, if we keep putting into office those who are nearly diametrically opposed to liberty, freedom, sound money, and real prosperity, we will continue to get the same. Come on America, if you keep buying the same garbage, the merchant is going to keep supplying it. Until we STOP voting for these RINO's, we're going to keep getting them, and hence keep losing to the liberals because the old fogies running the party think they are smarter than you.
Huh? Do I know you, Ron? You're making some pretty big assumptions by your comments. How on God's green earth do you logically conclude from those 8 words that I have done nothing to speak out against this tyranny by our government? You have to do some pretty substantial mental gymnastics to come up with that conclusion, considering you don't even know me. You need to work on cleaning up your bitterness against your fellow Americans. I support our soldiers, and I let my representatives, family, friends, and acquaintances know I don't tolerate this behavior from our government. What I don't understand is why so many in this country would rather plug their ears and not even pay attention to the primaries, intentionally avoiding this type of news because they would rather continue living in ignorance.
Why do people tolerate this 1984 nonsense? Why?
Leaders (and it's not just church leaders, it's God's standards for all leaders) are required to be the husband of one wife. One cannot argue that God's standards are lessened for secular leaders as that makes no sense logically, let alone biblically. While the world might support and vote for a candidate with no biblical foundation to be a leader to cause that leader to win, Christians cannot biblically vote for a serial adulterer.
Who made Paul an apostle? God? Does God ordain President's the same way? No. Also the sins are not comparable. Murder may be worse, but God truly knew Paul's heart was repentant because HE is the one who made him an apostle. Apples and oranges. We do not know Newt's heart, we must judge his actions. He broke his vows to two different wives. He was unfit for the Presidency with the first. This is not comparable in any way, shape, or form.
He is still disqualified from public office, just like a pastor would be from his position as leader if he commits adultery. There is no different standard for a Christian to disqualify someone for adultery as pastor then say it's fine for a President. That's like saying we can behave one way on Sunday but act like an unbeliever during the rest of the week. We cannot trust someone who breaks their vows (twice!) and shows such disregard for marriage. Repentant or not, he has disqualified himself and should not be supported by any Christian. Shameful that people would lower their standards in the name of pragmatism. Character means nothing in politics, apparently. Not so for a Christian.
Doesn't matter. He has shown that he cannot be trusted to uphold his vows. No Christian should vote for Newt. Repentant or not, he is disqualified from public office, just like a pastor would be disqualified from his position in the case of adultery---repentant or not. There are consequences for sin.
Bias against those who compromise principle in the name of pragmatism? Absolutely. Character is VERY important when choosing a President. How can we expect a President who disregards such a high office as husband to show any respect to vows to uphold the Constitution? We should be biased and rightly so against those who compromise their principles just to win. We get what we deserve.
Gingrich has absolutely every right to repent and should be forgiven by those who were affected by his sin. That doesn't mean that there are clear consequences for our actions. One should not be allowed to hold public office when they have committed adultery in the past, because, repentant or not, it shows they have broken the most sacred vow of marriage and are thus not to be deserving of such a high office as President. He's already demonstrated lack of regard for the Constitution by supporting TARP even after his repentance of adultery. Clearly he cannot uphold his vows of marriage and those to uphold the Constitution, so Christians should not support him.
Sin has consequences. Pastors who commit adultery should step down and even if they repent, they are disqualified from being the spiritual leader of a church. While not a spiritual office, those who are President hold an office with a lot of power and Christians should likewise hold those who seek that office to the same character they would expect from a pastor.
You're also wrong---Ron Paul has plenty of support to stay in the race against Romney and has beaten Gingrich in the caucuses thus far. Don't buy into the media blackout because the media is part of the same Big Government establishment.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Creation