Monday, November 1, 2010

Re: My Plea to You All

I respect your opinion, but as a Christian, I must support the cadidate that is most Libertarian in viewpoint & principle.  I know many Christians think it is a good thing to regulate morality but I feel confident that God's plan is that we are to live in liberty.  We were made in His image & in that image we find all of our good qualities, the best of human nature.  It is the utmost of service to our fellow man that we protect that nature. We cannot be of service to rob him of choices that he should make. The founders understood this & as good stuarts of the gift of freedom we must also.
Our victory will not come with a Republican takeover of government but with a responsible ownership of it by the people.  That will not happen in a day.

On Nov 1, 2010 5:11 PM, "terry mixer" <mixerft@gmail.com> wrote:

To all Tea Party Patriots,

 

On the eve of the most important vote in this nation to Take America Back from the Socialist/Marxist regime trying to destroy our nation, I have a heavy heart on our direction.

 

I see us as a bunch of foolish people fighting amongst ourselves on who we are voting for, who is the best candidate,  or having issues because some things have not worked out how we wanted them to.

 

We have a common enemy—a group who wants to destroy America by destroying our Constitution, destroying our economy, destroying our Christian faith, and destroying our capitalist system. Instead, they want to institute a Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Islamic/Sharia law Regime in this country.  If allowed to continue, the people now in charge of our Executive, Congressional, and Judicial Branches WILL destroy America as we now know it for you and for your children.

Our 3rd District is headed by a liberal Democratic Candidate that has been in office for 18 years and many times has run unopposed! He is brother-in-law to our newly elected Mayor and is supportive of the Agenda 21 UN plan for Newport News. In addition, he is fully supported by Obama.

Obviously, we need to replace him tomorrow.

 

BUT-----instead of getting behind one candidate in our District where we could all throw our weight (our votes) and oust Bobby Scott---we choose to each stand on our own opinions on why we should not be voting for a GOP candidate or why we should be voting for a 3rd party candidate.

 

This is foolishness!!  The Democrats are laughing at us when we come out with these type of tactics knowing that if we do this, we split the vote and their candidate remains in office. How foolish! We need the strength of a united group behind one candidate that has the clout to take out Bobby Scott.

 

We need a vision of how to win the battles and the war! If we lose this battle tomorrow—we may not have another chance to win the war. There may be NO America as we know it. This is NOT the time to play around in this district.

 

I have repeatedly asked Quigley to step down so we could be united in our votes—to no avail. I have heard people I had respect for fight and argue over this candidate—til I have lost respect for them. 

 

Third party candidates are not the way to win this election—and if we lose this because they have split the conservative vote-and America goes under—I am sure you will never forgive yourself.  Elections have been  won/lost by one vote—and it may be yours that wins or loses this election.

As a Christian—the third party-Libertarian party—has a party platform I cannot support. They may be for limited government, etc—but they are also pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-drugs, etc.   Because the party believes in limited government, they don't believe government should regulate any of this. But our Constitution says, government is to protect the people. Regulating drugs, protecting marriage, protecting life—ARE areas government should be doing.

 

As a Christian, I cannot support the Libertarian platform.

 

Please tomorrow—when it is time to vote—consider that a vote for a third party in this race is a wasted vote.  All of us need to unite behind a candidate tomorrow that can win.

 

Our right choice is Chuck Smith—the only way we can oust Bobby Scott.
 
"Pray as if it all is up to God (becuase it is),  And work as if it is all up to you "

 

  Terry Mixer

22 comments:

  1. I absolutely believe that everyone should vote for the candidate of their choice rather than the one they think can win. However, Chuck Smith is the best candidate without question.

    I've talked to Quigley enough to know how seriously inexperienced and unqualified he is.
    I admire his valiant efforts but even he should recognize that he can only do more damage than good.
    Mike Quigley either doesn't know any better, or worse, he does...

    Why on earth would anyone think that Quigley could be nearly as effective as Chuck Smith in DC.
    First, (no offense but) Quigley would be chewed up and spit out the first day. Seriously.
    Second, You can't get much more conservative than Chuck. Just because Quigley is a "Libertarian" doesn't mean he's more conservative.
    Third, Quigley would be a toy in Congress. Once his limited knowledge and experience was challenged, he'd have no answers.
    He sounds good alone but he's never debated anyone serious. Is he going to make friends with them, or butt heads? Does he have the slightest idea how to handle them?

    Chuck does, he's argued countless cases in front to juries and judges. He's as knowledgeable as anyone in the US on the hottest issue, immigration law.
    What's Quigley got, an AF Captain as a sensor operator, then two years immersed in Libitarianism? He's apparently too naive to recognize how naive he is.

    Tell Mike all the above and, tell him I said so.

    Respectfully,
    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  2. I totally agree, Terry! I can see a third party possibly for the 2012 Presidential race if GOP leadership throws us a hand-picked candidate like they did with McCain, but this election must result in removing power from the Dems. It was my understanding from the speeches at the TEA party events earlier this year that the local TEA parties would not, I repeat, would not divide the conservative vote by endorsing 3rd party candidates. We do have good, solid conservatives running for the GOP and I fully believe that they do "get it."
    Thanks~
    Shirley

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wayne and Terry,

    Abortion is not for me however I believe it is a woman's right to choose (she will have to answer to her maker). I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman however I have no issue with a Civil Union for two consenting adults who love each other and who should be entitled to the benefits married couples share. I consider myself to be a Christian as I do not judge others as I feel that to be God's job and not mine.

    I will not demean Chuck Smith as you have James Quigley, Fred, however I take issue with the fact Mr. Smith lives in the 2nd District and not the 3rd. Why did the Republican Party not run Mr. Smith in the 2nd District? I suspect I already know the answer to that question since the 3rd District was gerrymandered specifically for Bobby Scott its pretty easy to figure that one out. I also take issue with the fact that Mr. Smith is an attorney. Trial lawyers have been a big part of our problems. Frankly, I want someone who lives in my district to represent me. I believe Mr. Smith will be indebted to the Republican Party for their selection of him as a candidate, possibly becoming yet another Rhino Republican.
    Mr. Quigley has a distinguished military career and has served his country well. Additionally he is a small business owner who knows it will take less regulation to create additional small businesses, the back bone of our economy.

    The Democrats want into my/our home, the Republicans want into my/our bedroom. Frankly, I don't want either anywhere near my home. Thus I will not be led around by the proverbial ring in the nose and will vote for the candidate of my choice and not the one who may have a better chance of winning. I eagerly support Mr. Quigley for the 3rd District and would be proud to have him represent me in Washington.

    I would hope each and everyone of you would vote for the candidate you believe would best represent your interest.

    Sincerely,
    Barbara Bane

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the contrary, I thought we did not intend to become enslaved by any party but that we must vote our principles. I have always known that we needed more than a mild swing of the pendulum swing to the right. The republicans have pledged to do little more.

    As it seems no one here is opposed to someone making a compromise, you are all welcome to support James Quigley who was coming to Tea Parties long before he was a candidate & even longer before Chuck was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Friends…I hope…

    According to Chuck himself, his 3 main qualifications are: 1)he’s a lawyer, 2)he was in the Navy (James is Air Force), and 3)he was born on the 4th of July. I’m not kidding. Again, these are his own words repeated over and over again at his appearances. He has no more experience than does James. Without question it James who is the best candidate.

    I fail to see where James would inflict damage by being truly committed to our freedom, where Chuck is only committed to being in Congress. This was clearly demonstrated his (Chuck’s) starting and quitting his own campaign in the 2nd district 3 times before come over to hijack the race in the third. He sold out his own campaign, his own district, and his own supporters 3 times in a row, and you somehow think he won’t sell you out? That is Chuck’s only experience. So I fail to see your logic.

    James has outperformed Chuck in every debate, and demonstrated superior knowledge of the issues. That’s according to the Virginian Pilot. Plus he shows up on time for the debates and actually lives in the third district which he seeks to represent. Chuck does neither. Chuck still lives in the 2nd district and wants to represent the third.

    James would caucus with the Republicans if he won. If they want and need his vote on many close issues, they will work with him. They have to. Check with Ron Paul of Texas, the head of the Libertarian movement in this country. I believe they work with him quite a bit.

    What do mean you can’t get much more conservative than Chuck? His character and integrity are exactly the issue. You don’t know what he is…only what he says he is. He has no record of conservative community activism to back it up. James does. I think we should check with his former supporters in the 2nd district which he walked out on…….3 times!! Besides, anyone can come up with talking points, as talk is cheap. I have no reason to believe anything he says, and neither does anyone else … except those who only require an “R” by the name.

    With all due respect, Wayne, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I don’t agree with James on every issue, but at least I know what I’m getting. You don’t. You only think you do.

    This paranoia over Bobby Scott returning for one more term is totally overblown and unwarranted. You are completely forgetting that even if he does, he will be in the minority and out of power. He can do no more damage. He will be able to do nothing. We just had a census, and the district will be redrawn to be more conservatively competitive. We would still have 2 more years to groom a good candidate (Chuck isn’t it) who actually lives in the third district to take out Bobby Scott and then hold that seat for at least 10 or 12 more years, after which he and everyone else should be term limited out anyway. Come on folks, think past the ends of your noses.

    The bottom line is this to all of my friends … though we may never have the “perfect” candidate, we will absolutely NEVER be able to expect to have elected representatives who don’t compromise their principles if the people who elect them refuse to do the same. Vote for the worthiness of the candidate, not the party.

    Respectfully,

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have been very curious about something for quite some time,and perhaps the supporters of Chuck Smith can answer this question for me: Was it important to get Bobby Scott out of office in 2008 or 2006? How about the importance of getting him out in 2002, 2000, and 1998? Wasn't it just as important then as it is now, because he ran unopposed in all those elections. In 2004, Winsome Sears, a black woman and a Republican, ran against Bobby Scott and received just 31% of the vote. There was no third party candidate then. Why weren't the Republicans able to beat him then? All those other years, the Republicans put no one against Bobby Scott and the one time they did, he garnered 69% of the vote. As to the election this year, James Quigley went to the Republicans twice in 2009 and asked them if they were going to run someone and twice he was told they weren't. In the mean time, Chuck Smith was running against Scott Rigell in the second district in which he just happens to live. He conceded the Republican nomination to Mr. Rigell in early December of 2009. If he was so anxious to run in the third district, why did he waste his time running in the second in the first place? Why didn't he start out in the third district, if this is such a vital race and beating Bobby Scott is as important to the Republicans as they keep trying to tell us it is? And if this race is all that important to the Republicans, why did Chuck Smith wait so long before entering the race in the third district once he was no longer vying for the spot in the second district?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am a registered Republican and I will cast my vote for James Quigley on Tuesday. Perhaps if Terry Mixer and all the other Republicans had been involved in ousting Bobby Scott all those previous years when he ran unopposed, your pleas to not split the vote might not sound so hollow to me. But from where I sit, along with many other individuals who will vote for James, it is Chuck Smith who is splitting the vote. Had the Republicans followed suit and stayed out of this race as they did all those other times, James would win quite handily this year. Which brings me to my final question: Just exactly what was it about this election above all the others that prompted the Republicans to run Chuck Smith? Why now and why so many months after James entered the race? Because if it is that important this year, and I believe it is, then it was just as important all those other years the Republicans refused to even try to run someone against Bobby Scott.

    There is one other thing you should know: had James for some reason quit the race, my vote would not have gone to Chuck Smith, and I believe I can say the same for every other person who will be voting for James, so he is not splitting the vote on the Republican side. You may rest in that knowledge.

    I have been turned off by the behavior of some of Chuck Smith's campaign workers and by some of Mr. Smith's actions since entering this race. He was an hour late for a debate in Richmond, almost missed another event entirely that he had been invited to (I was at both events so I know this for a fact), and I have heard of other such incidences that he was scheduled for and missed. His late entry into this race speaks far more of a lack of enthusiasm and deep desire to win on his part and it really concerns me just what kind of a congressman he would make. Will his lack of enthusiasm and drive translate into the same qualities as a congressman?

    The way I see it, this is a very unusual situation which doesn't occur too often, if ever. Because this district was specifically drawn for Bobby Scott everyone automatically concedes this race to him, before a single vote is cast. I even heard Tony Mcrini say that this is "Bobby Scott's district". As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to lose by voting for James Quigley, and quite a lot to gain, because of all the candidates running for the third district, he is the only one who seems to comprehend the depth of the importance of the Constitution, and for this race it is more important to vote one's principles than to stick with a particular party. As for your concern regarding the Libertarian label, please remember that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs are also Libertarians.

    Linda Gunn

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,
    That is just the kind of twisted logic we don't need or want to represent us, (or at least, I don't).

    We've seen enough taken out of context, answers repeated to the wrong questions, and BS from Washington. The last thing we need is to have it from you.
    For example you have a big problem with Chuck currently living adjacent to the district, which is nothing but a smokescreen. That's all you can drum up, and your riding that?
    I was there when Chuck made the decision not to move a few blocks just to live "inside" the 3rd. His integrity wouldn't allow him to waste that much time, money and energy just for appearances.
    But you didn't know that. You don't know Chuck, I do.
    I've seen you scare old people into thinking there is a problem where you know there is not. Is that a real issue?
    Is that the kind of person Quigley is? Are those his tactics? I thought the Libertarian Party was supposed to be better than that.

    How do you think James would survive in DC. Are you the man who's going to hold his hand? Good grief! You can't even withstand an e-mail trail.

    Many of us asked Chuck to run in the 3rd, as did the Republican party.
    We convinced Chuck that he could do the area and the nation more good by doing so.
    He answered that call. He didn't hijack YOUR district. Who the blazes are you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Quigley:
    1. nice guy as he is, just didn't have a snowball's chance.
    2. is severely unqualified. He told me himself he just got involved in 2008 when he saw something was wrong.
    3. doesn't own the right to run by himself, but yes, he does have the right to run if he wants to, regardless of the consequences.
    4. knows he couldn't possibly win the district (he must know that by now), but he won't give up. I suppose that's a good thing.
    5. thereby he can only act as a "spoiler," (which I don't believe he will even do that). If he is, that's NOT a good thing.
    6. has not come close to out performing Chuck or anyone else except in how you read that most reliable VA Pilot.
    7. may very well become a great candidate and statesman one day, but it is not today.

    As far as knowing what Chuck is, I personally do. Do you?
    If you were worth your weight in sawdust, you'd have already checked his actions in the 2nd as well as his work with immigration.
    So why do you have nothing more to offer than empty speculations?
    You're willing to sling mud, but you really don't have any and you're not willing to walk across the street to see if there's any there; or you did and there wasn't.

    "This paranoia over Bobby Scott returning for one more term," are your words, not ours.
    You can not take for granted that his party is going to be powerless. Insuring Bobby is not there, is just more assurance that they won't be in power and even the possibility of gaining 2/3 power in the house.
    Your willingness to take those kinds of chances with this nation at a time like this proves how careless, thoughtless, and selfish you are.
    You'd rather continue your illusion at the risk of our nation? THAT is not the kind of people we need to send to DC.
    Are you the same babe in the woods that Quigley is?

    Well sorry it had to come to this. I respected the Libertarian party up until you pulled, "the only way to cooperate is your way" routine.

    Best of luck to you both,
    Wayne Petitto



    PS. Sorry I intermixed your and James' names earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sorry Wyane, I love you but I have to say the tone of the discussion was set by you. I don't think we need to get into how we think someone does not qualify for the position since clearly they are both citizens and of age. As far as I'm concerned the greater your knowledge of how things work in government today the greater your learning curve on how things should work.
    How about we all agree that none of these arguments actually disqualify anyone. Bottom line, as you did say in the beginning, we should all vote our principles.

    Also it is hubris to for either of us to accuse the other of splitting the vote as if it is the providence of the "true conservative" to get all of the votes that do not go to Bobby Scott. The fact may very well be that James Quigley as a Libertarian will take away more votes from former Scott supporters. Consider that a classic liberal, interested in the protection of personal rights has much more in common with the Libertarian philosophy than the present day "conservative" Republicans who many fear will to try to legislate morality over personal rights.

    The reality is we may never know if either candidate would have done any better if running alone against Bobby Scott. To suggest someone who you are not invested in or have supported should drop out or that it is more Christian to vote for one candidate over the other as Terry did could only be met with passionate opposition. So I apologize if I offended anyone else ;) with my response. It is not that we should not use our faith to guide our decisions. We absolutely should. It is just that in a persuasive argument one should be careful to include reason and make no presumption that you are speaking for such a large group of people.

    I hope we can all continue to work together for goals we have in common, looking forward to solve problems rather than looking back to place blame. No matter the outcome of this election we already have raised the level of discussion in the 3rd district to include the constitution, the federal reserve, and questioning the value of social programs. There hasn't been this much thinking going on there in years.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Love you too bru,
    Tone: Was set many months ago, when Mr. Prunty stared trying to seed doubt about Chuck's integrity for absolutely innocuous reasons. Tone doesn't bother me. Tone is just tone, not an issue, a point, or a tactic.
    Qualifications: You are exactly correct. If I didn't think Chuck Smith was more experienced, skilled, and aligned with my beliefs, I'd be behind James Quigley all the way, so I stand corrected. Thanks.
    Vote your principals: We do agree. My principals stand unaltered.
    Vote splitting: This part of politics sucks. As we refine issues, our basis is bound to become split. That is why we have primaries. That's the millstone around the neck of a third party. We have 2 years to remove that, but it is still there now.
    The present day "conservative" Republicans: If anyone thinks Chuck is the present day Republican, they don't know how much he has bucked the Republican Party already. He doesn't just say that, he does it, and it has hurt him. He believes in "Principal Over Politics," just as it is written on the wall of his HQ to remind his staff. I guarantee you Chuck is in charge of his campaign, not the other way around. His integrity has led him to have to change significant staff members at critical times. His principals would not accept otherwise.
    Knowing if either candidate would have done better: I believe few who vote for James or Chuck would have voted for Scott, with the exception of the race factor, (57%). The unfortunate reality is that the race factor is mostly in Chuck's favor. So at the end of the day we'll have a pretty good idea how Chuck would have done alone but not necessarily how James would have done. I'm not being condescending or anything, that's just the plain unfortunate truth.
    Dropping out: Actually I'm not advocating James drop out. That is one of the tools of politics that have evolved. So if James had decided to "throw his support" a week ago, that would have helped Chuck, but he doesn't not wish to, that's fine with me. I enjoy his perseverance; it will serve him well in the future. My argument was with Mike regarding his reasoning why he thinks Quigley could better represent the 3rd district.
    Working together: You bet! The unfortunate thing is that both candidates are fundamentally similar thus the split factor.

    Let the thinking go on and never again stop.

    Most respectfully,
    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  14. Until now I have been silent during this campaign due to an unexpectedly large number of vital personal responsibilities and ongoing issues.

    I must now express total agreement with Alexander (who I don't know) and general agreement with Mike Prunty, who I do know.

    First of all, I am an independent who met Quigley in 2008 at a Libertarian Party meeting in Hampton where I spontaneously decided to join. He chaired the meeting and was very impressive in the depth and breadth of his knowledge on a wide range of issues, including my main issue at the time. I believe it was early in 2009 that he decided to run for the 2nd District Congressional seat. I wrote him a check for $100 immediately. The Republicans had no candidate and when they tried to field one, they were dropping like flies at first. The Republicans had ample opportunity to get behind Quigley, but apparently they were the ones who wanted it their way or the highway. They had repeated chances to endorse Quigley, but instead preferred to conduct a long drawn out embarrassing public drama to find a candidate. To expect Quigley to drop out after starting his campaign about a year before the Republicans even had a candidate is ludicrous and presumptuous. (That being said, I met Chuck Smith and he is a fine man too)

    Secondly, Alexander's reasoning is exactly correct when he said;
    "Also it is hubris to for either of us to accuse the other of splitting the vote as if it is the providence of the "true conservative" to get all of the votes that do not go to Bobby Scott. The fact may very well be that James Quigley as a Libertarian will take away more votes from former Scott supporters. Consider that a classic liberal, interested in the protection of personal rights has much more in common with the Libertarian philosophy than the present day "conservative" Republicans who many fear will to try to legislate morality over personal rights."

    For example, James told me early in the campaign, well before Chuck announced, that he had spoken before a prominent black muslim group and he was well received. He told me our mutual friend Mike Prunty didn't think he should do go, but I told him I thought he was right to go because they were his constituents and their opinions mattered as long as they were Americans. Regardless of whether we like them or agree with them. Many of them are not happy with Scott, but see Republicans as even more hostile to them and their freedom. Rightly or wrongly, that is generally what they think. I understand that James' libertarian message resonated with them and he likely got votes from them that otherwise would have gone to Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another example (of many) was James' widely publicized position on the proposed Surry Coal Fired Power Plant and the certain increase of environmental mercury that would soon bioaccumulate in the bodies of the citizens, food and children of the 2nd District and their neighbors. I personally think it was a great moral position to take and a good political one too. When I saw the depth of his position on the issue I was surprised at the scientific research he had undertaken that supported it. I too had done the same research a couple of years prior for a major lawsuit we won in federal court and in which I was a plaintiff. I did not expect a political candidate to do the same research and I was impressed.

    The main point of this example is that James is the only candidate to take this position which is one that Bobby Scott or Chuck should have taken. A wide swath of the population, objective scientists and nearly all environmentalists feel very strongly about it. I would estimate that well over 75% of those who feel strongly on this issue would normally vote Democratic. It is a populist issue and I am sure the big money people behind it did not donate a dime to Quigley. Quigley is the only one whose position reflects the best interests, health and well being of the 2nd district citizens, in my opinion.

    As Alexander said, it is flat out wrong to assume that votes Quigley gets would have gone to Chuck Smith. I think they would more likely have gone to Scott. Frankly, it is more likely that votes that Chuck gets would have gone to Quigley, but not vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, it is this type of maneuvering from those outside the district who would like to control the 2nd District Congressional seat that rightly causes suspicion from the black majority who actually live in the district. If the Republicans could take that district by not having other pesky competitors, they would have done so when pretty, popular and intelligent Winsome Sears was soundly thrashed 2 to 1 by Scott a few years ago.

    For what it is worth and regardless of some sharp disagreements I have with Scott, he is generally well liked in his district and many feel he has served them well. Whether they are right or wrong, that is generally their perception whether we like it or not.

    Also, for what it is worth, I have had several significant conversations with Scott on issues I disagreed with him on. Despite our differences, he was very cordial, attentive and gave me all the time I wanted to discuss details of where I thought his position was wrong. He showed some issue flexibility and even offered me future time if I wanted to present him with more evidence on my issue that might change his mind. I was going to do just that, except that we won our issue in federal court and made the point moot.

    One of my big concerns now, is that with the election of NN Mayor McKinley Price, there is now a family dynasty running Newport News with a tight machine of powerful insider supporters. They have major plans and aspirations for the future and many of those concern me. There will be plenty of future battles.

    I would recommend you all not burn bridges you may want to walk over in the future. Also both Chuck and James are fine people who will have plenty of future opportunities. Unthinkable to most on this list is the fact that many of Scott's constituents feel the same about him. The trick is not to get Scott out with external maneuvering, but to present 2nd District voters with new alternatives they may find more appealing.

    I have a lot more to say on this than I have time to say it.

    Respectfully,

    Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  17. To all Patriots and Mike W, Linda, Alexander, esp—



    Some issues I would like to address that have been mentioned—

    “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.”

    We are a Judeo-Christian nation—“was and are” as established by our law system—which is founded on the Word of God-the Bible- (we have denied our founding-but this is our foundation) Read your original history that has not been revised.

    Thou shalt have no other gods before me

    Thou shalt not kill

    Thou shalt not commit adultery

    Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy

    Thou shalt not steal

    ETC.

    Our founders knew man was depraved—we are not righteous and left to ourselves will do evil-not good.

    When we are self-governed under God’s law—man tends to do good; but left to themselves, we will not; evil will reign.

    As our society has removed God and his law word from it, we have become more and more evil and depraved-and sin reigns in society, as God’s word said it would.

    Government is instituted, by God, as a protector of the good and a punisher of the evil.

    Government’s job is not only to protect us physically-as in our armies, but to protect the basic premises of society-morality. Without it, our republic will collapse. When the people can no longer judge righteously—sin becomes rampant and all the bad side of man comes to surface-the greed, corruption of government and society, rampant homosexuality that would destroy society and the propagation of the human race, would corrupt our children, and end the next generation if left to propagate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We cannot legislate what goes on behind closed doors in a person’s house—but we do legislate what is proselytized to others in the open.



    Why are Christians being told we cannot speak about God and Jesus Christ in schools, government places, the military, etc but yet we can openly talk about homosexuality in our schools etc to destroy and break down society?



    Christians—we have been sold a bill of goods. We need to stand for what’s right.



    We need to think this through. Thinking we want less restrictions and to get government out of our affairs-we support the Libertarian agenda. Let’s consider.



    We don’t want to legislate against abortion because it’s a woman’s right to choose? All life starts at conception. Why do we think an animal starts at conception and yet state that a human is not viable until later-and not conception? A fertilized egg will never become anything other than human—God established the fact that “like begets like”. So, if it’s a human in 3 months, it’s a human when the egg is fertilized.

    Do we have an obligation to protect life in this country? Are we under God’s moral law as a Christian nation? Our laws say—Do not kill. That is the negative; The positive then is ”We are required to protect our life and the life of others.” To not do so is as much a crime as to actually kill. It makes you an assessor to murder. You Have a “right” AND a “moral obligation” to protect someone from being killed—how much more an innocent baby-who is totally defenseless and will be murdered unless YOU come to its defense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I cannot believe anyone can say “it’s a woman’s right to choose!” To choose what? not to murder her child? She has a right to choose what items she wants to put into her cart at the grocery store—but not to “choose” whether to kill her baby or not. Is she mentally unstable at the moment to think she can “kill” anyone and get away with it? What are we thinking as a society to have allowed this to happen and to continue? We are not “choosing” living room colors, or a new car style, or a new house. God help us-this is life-we are choosing to kill!

    Since government’s job is to protect our liberties, for defense, etc so we can live quiet, peaceable lives-it IS government’s job to protect the moral framework of society-as much as it is their job to protect us physically. It IS government’s job to legislate the outward morality of the nation—it cannot legislate the inward, but it CAN legislate those outwardly so that society is governed my moral, just laws. And society can live in peace.



    Is it peaceful for you to live next to an abortion clinic knowing that children are being murdered in there every day? S it peaceful for you to watch a GAY PRIDE parade and let your children be exposed to debauchery, seeing men dressed as women, and women as men, seeing men kissing men and women kissing women? Do you want YOUR children being told in school that behavior like that is OK and to accept it?



    If you as Libertarians, say you don’t want government to regulate homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc then as our society falls away from God’s word-sin becomes more rampant and “everyone does that which is right in their own eyes.”

    Homeosexuality, abortion etc must be limited for the continuation of society—or we will kill off the next generation-and it is right to do so for the protection of all. Left to ourselves—we would destroy ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As to Chuck –the third district situation etc—we cannot help the fact today that we are just walking up. We should have gotten Bobby Scott out ages ago-but didn’t. That was then—this is now.



    How are we being foolish by voting a third party right now? What do the Democrats do? They all rally behind one candidate and ask the others to drop out of the race-so all votes can be put on the candidate that can win.



    We not only need to run a decent candidate-not perfect, but one we can work with—but we need to have a strategy that can accomplish what we need it to do—win the election, and change the direction of where we are going.



    We cannot do that by dividing the vote. You can go ahead and argue over why you should vote your conscience and stand your ground—and we will lose this district again to a socialist democrat and our country to immorality and socialism. But go ahead—stand your ground and defend your right to vote for your candidate—win the battle in your mind.



    But the war will be lost-----the big picture is to stop the Marxist agenda being perpetrated on us before it’s too late.



    Chuck Smith is not perfect—but WILL send a clear message to Bobby Scott (and his brother in law-our mayor) and to Obama who supports Scott and the Mayor and the Agenda 21 plan for Newport News)

    The message---That we mean business and the people have spoken.

    We CANNOT do this by splitting the vote today
    God help us all
    Terry

    ReplyDelete
  21. Michael J Welker JrNovember 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM

    Terry,

    First, I agree that we must be careful about splitting the ticket. The last thing we need is two more years of this.

    Unfortunately, I do take issue with your latter statement. Libertarians are not "pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-drugs, etc", what they are is pro-liberty. You're advocating the same government intrusion mandated by the left, just with differing control points. Libertarians are focused on removing government control and allowing us to decide for ourselves. Supporting the removal of government control over our lives is not the same as supporting poor choices.

    This would work in your favor just on abortion alone. How long do you think 'Planned Parenthood' would survive without government funding? What do you suppose would happen if the government wasn't involved in 'gay rights'? Do you suppose we'd have all of the violence surrounding 'drugs' if we hadn't instilled prohibition and started a 'war on drugs'?

    BTW, care to share where the Constitution states 'government is to protect the people'?

    Thank you,

    Michael J Welker Jr

    Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. - Hypatia

    ReplyDelete
  22. Terry,
    Can I be honest? I hope I don't come across as mean or insulting
    because I do not intend to. I have respect for all you do and hope to
    continue supporting you for a long time to come but...

    I have to say, you are very passionate about your beliefs and I hold
    most of those same beliefs. I see there is not much point to the
    debate since you seem unaffected by any other viewpoint or information
    and are well rehearsed at stating your case. You also make your best
    arguments against points nobody has made. It is clear you are
    unwilling to understand or learn anything about the Libertarian
    philosophy.

    I think I agree on your issues of morality and our personal
    responsibility but where we depart is the role of government
    especially on the federal level. There is a reason the constitution
    does not try to define "morality" and limits the discussion and the
    role of government to definable individual rights that it is to
    protect.

    "How are we being foolish by voting a third party right now? What do
    the Democrats do? They all rally behind one candidate and ask the
    others to drop out of the race-so all votes can be put on the
    candidate that can win." I'm not sure if you are saying this is bad
    or if it's the admirable thing about Democrats that you & Chuck Smith
    are trying to emulate.

    As I've said before, James' impact may be in getting some Democrats to
    think for themselves for a change and not vote for the party just
    because there is a "D" by the name. If we have not had the same
    positive effect on Republicans than all I can say is we did the best
    we could.

    Robert Bruce Alexander

    ReplyDelete