144 votes

Rick Santorum is Unelectable

Since the beginning of the Republican Presidential Primary race, we have heard that Ron Paul is unelectable. While many conservatives like some of Paul’s ideas on domestic policy, his non-interventionist foreign policy is supposedly a deal-breaker. Even in articles praising Paul on particular issues, reporters have without exception felt compelled to remind us that there is absolutely no chance that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination for president. This “unelectable” label has been used exclusively against Paul.

With only four candidates left in the race, the lead has changed hands several times. The current leader is Rick Santorum, fresh off primary wins in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. Since those victories, the media have been trumpeting Santorum as the new frontrunner while completely ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room – Rick Santorum is unelectable.

With a plethora of debates behind us, we have had a chance to get to know the Republican candidates pretty well. All of the Republican candidates except for Ron Paul support some sort of federal government prohibition on gay marriage. Paul actually wants to get even the state governments out of the marriage business, taking the libertarian position that marriage is just a contract like any other. This has visibly upset Santorum, who not only opposes gay marriage but seems completely obsessed with homosexuality in general. Let’s be honest, who doesn’t believe, deep down, that Santorum wouldn’t support making homosexuality illegal again if he thought he could get away with it?

Most Republican voters put the federal budget at or near the top of their priority list as far as their political positions are concerned. Not Rick Santorum. The issues page on his website has the budget thirteenth on the page. What is the number one issue? “Enforcing Laws Against Illegal Pornography,” which Rick says “causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences.” Queue the eerie music because we’re just getting started.

Number two on his list is “No More Leading from Behind for America,” which is basically the standard Republican Party line that the U.S. military should be deployed in just about every nation on earth. I happen to think that is crazy, but most Republicans don’t. However, number three on the list is gay marriage. So, out of the top three issues listed on his page, pornography and homosexuality are two of them. Update: Since this article was published, Santorum’s staff has changed the order of the issues on his issue page. He has moved “Enforcing Laws Against Illegal Pornography” to last on the page, moving the federal budget up to 12th by default. Gay marriage now comes in at Number Two.

To say that Rick is “a little uptight” is a gross understatement. Santorum has stated unequivocally that he believes that the federal government can and should regulate the bedroom. In fact, he has also said that there is no area of life that is beyond the government’s reach. Outside of the few states where evangelicals can allow him to get away with these positions, he simply cannot win. Voters in the more moderate states like New York and California - which control the bulk of the delegates – will find these ideas repugnant.

The media has often supported the “Ron Paul is unelectable” narrative by criticizing his supporters. I’m not sure what the beliefs of some of his supporters have to do with Paul’s fitness for the presidency, but the punditry believes it is a valid line of inquiry.

So, some of Ron Paul’s supporters believe in elaborate conspiracy theories. The most prevalent revolves around quasi-secret organizations like the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission. The theory is that very wealthy families like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers use these organizations to further a plot to establish a world government. Some people think this theory is “a little kooky.” Not all or even most Paul supporters hold these views, but let’s say that a significant minority do.

Now, let’s consider the views of a significant minority of the evangelicals that support Rick Santorum. They are fierce supporters of the U.S. government’s wars in the Middle East because they believe that if Jewish people do not control the city of Jerusalem, then…wait for it…Jesus will not return to earth during the “end time,” which they also believe will occur any minute now. They are willing to elect leaders who will take America to war based upon this belief, which ranks up there with the “precious bodily fluids” theory from Dr. Strangelove.

I’m not even 100% sure that Santorum doesn’t believe this himself. Someone should ask him. Certainly, there have been much sillier questions put to candidates during the debates. I for one would like to at least get this crossed off the long list of idiotic theories that inform the president.

Regardless of Santorum’s answer to that question, which it is only fair to assume would be “no,” his other positions still nullify any chance of him becoming president. From all reports, Santorum is a decent person and a good father, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having strong religious convictions. However, the vast majority of Americans do not believe that those convictions should be imposed upon other people with the force of law. Rick Santorum does. That alone makes it obvious that Rick Santorum is never going to be president. So why hasn’t the media proclaimed him unelectable as they have Ron Paul?

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A Paulbot moneybomb to order

A Paulbot moneybomb to order a solid national electability poll can cost $100K, maybe less.

But a poll like that is a way to do away with the more unsubstantiated speculations on who is electable and who is not. A poll not biased against Ron Paul, who heard of that before?

Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.

The media hasn't proclaimed Santorum unlectable cuz if they did

They'd have to give more time to Ron Paul, or they could only talk about Romney, which quickly gets very boring. The corporate media loves a freak show. QED

The evangelicals who somehow want to bring about the "last days" of the book of Revelation... those people are nutjobs, and I am saying that as a Christian myself.

I happen to believe that the book of Revelation is too buried in metaphor to be accurately translated into actual events. It is sheer arrogance to interpret it some particular way, assume you got it right, and then work to "bring it to pass". I don't think God needs anybody's help.

Moreover, assuming the Great Tribulation is in the future and will result in mass death and suffering, I don't see why anyone would want to hurry it along. It would be more Christlike to hope for a longer period of forbearance in order to win more people over to Christ before it is "too late".

Christian blood

The least reported major story of the last decade has been the genocide of up to one million Iraqi Christians since American occupation and support of Iraq's present government. Only Dr. Paul predicted this would happen and mentioned this as one reason for not going into Iraq. Santorum, a chief sponsor of this escapade which has brought about the dispersion and genocide of the Chaldean, Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities in Iraq. How anyone who calls himself a Christian could support the war mongering Santorum is beyond me. I wish Dr. Paul would say a sentence about this in his speeches. I think it could win over so called social conservatives to him

baronius56

I object to him trying to portray himself as something he is not

We all suspect it, but don't want to say it out loud.

Just look at Rick Santorum's picture on this thread. He CLEARLY is trying very hard to portray himself as something he is not. Just look at the 'sweater vests' he wears! It is obvious. We're on to you Rick!

Just look at this link, there is no denying what I'm talking about:
http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/wallace3.jpg

Clearly he is subliminally trying to be more likable by adopting the lovable persona of Wallace; of Wallace and Gromit fame. Further, by associating himself in voter's subconsciousness as a 'friend of the dog Gromit', he is trying to capture the dog lovers that fall out of Mitt Romney's camp (ref: notorious dog tied to roof of car incident).

Think about it people!

coffee_sponge's picture

Are you sure that isn't Rick Santorum Sr. ?

LOL That's funny as H-E-double hockey sticks!

I have to say that the

I have to say that the infighting among republicans only helps Obama. He already has the media on his side.

When You all go off on the Grinch, Frothy and Romney, You are actually helping Obama to get 4 more years.
We know what that means, right?

Obama > Frothy

If someone like Frothy wins, he will be a disaster for the "conservative" brand. He will govern like a progressive, along with the neocon and theocon trappings. Then at the end of that four years, "conservativism" and "capitalism" will get the blame. Why do you think the media is promoting Frothy?

I think they promote him

I think they promote him mostly because they think Obama can beat him (and he will).
They are not sure about the Grinch.
And Ron Paul and Romney both have a chance to win.
A good one in spite of the MSM.

What i meant to say was not that it's not justified to attack Frothy, I meant that it makes Obama look so much better compared to ALL republican candidates.

Santorum is right, but wrong

As a Catholic, I actually agree with most things that Santorum says about morality. But where I profoundly disagree with him is that he believes it is the federal government's role to enforce morality on everyone.

Besides, even if Santorum was right that the federal government is the grandest thing since sliced bread, he would be stupid in trying to enforce morality in areas where there is no consensus. Laws flow naturally from a shared moral consensus, not vice versa. This is exactly why Roe vs. Wade was such a travesty, as even Justice Ginsburg(!) admitted recently. But Santorum basically wants to do the same thing in the opposite direction.

I know people are getting tired

of seeing my name on this thread and I apologize for being redundant as I know it's getting very annoying. But I don't see how Santorum is any different than Newt or Mitt on social issues. He wants a Constitutional amendment on abortion - so does Ron Paul (See Personhood Forum @ 15:00). He wants a Constitutional amendment on marriage - so do Romney and Gingrich. He wants to continue fighting the unconstitutional drug war - so do Romney and Gingrich. You see, this pummeling of Santorum has nothing to do with any policies he plans to implement, it's based solely on his rhetoric. Santorum is no more socially Conservative than Romney or Gingrich. He just ACTS like he is to win the nomination. And guess what, it seems to be working. Whether we like it or not, the nomination goes through social Conservatives. I just think we could help Ron Paul better by instead of slamming two-thirds of the Republican Party as "theocrats", pointing out that Santorum funded Planned Parenthood and that social-cons will get most everything they want with Dr. Paul.

I think

The way I interpreted the statement that "social conservatism is a losing proposition" is that it is a losing cause to make that the focus of your electoral campaign. Law should naturally flow from a moral consensus, and Paul realizes this.

Yes, good points

From a social conservative standpoint, Ron Paul is definitely better on abortion, as he has a plan to overturn Roe vs. Wade, while the establishment GOP candidates plan to do nothing other than keep us on the edge of our seats wondering if they'll ever appoint that 5th judge who could end Roe vs. Wade judicially.

On marriage, I think Paul's solution is better as well. Get the government out of refereeing marriage in general, and let the churches deal with it. This is basically the way things worked for the first 1800 years A.D.

I think those who fear social conservatism do so because of people like Santorum who want to legislate morality when there is no consensus (like Roe vs. Wade enshrined immorality by judicial fiat, but in reverse) Christians need to realize that society is essentially de-Christianized, and that we'll have to build a consensus over time again.

I agree

But like I said, I think that Libertarians that fear Santorum, fear him for his rhetoric alone. Rick Santorum is probably less socially Conservative than Newt Gingrich. Even if I were an atheist Conservative/Libertarian and looked at Santorum's record, I would be a lot more concerned with his liberal fiscal voting record than I would with his social conservative voting record.

Plus

Well, that, and the fact that Santorum has expressed open hostility to libertarianism. Rick has never found a problem that he didn't think the government could solve, and he has all the answers. To be honest, that's the way most politicians think, but Santorum is more open about it than most.

agreed, but Sharia-Santorum is *sill* a miracle worker

who else could make Newt look almost reasonable ?

Communist-Catholic-Crusader-Dictator SANTORUM!

Yet, the whole reason why the GOP establishment has kept pushing people like Herman Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, & now Santorum, is because their records have not been as much in the 'Spotlight' as Gingrich & Romney's. They KNOW, oh yes, the GOP establishment KNOWS that the dirt on Romney & Gingrich is endless over the past few decades, and that many Republicans know very well about how much they have flip-flopped over the years.
With Santorum, he's a 'Last Hope' effort for the GOP.
I hope Ron Paul has ANOTHER great debate against everyone on Wed., but especially Sanitarium... can't stand that guy.

☪The Ayatollah Santorum would

☪The Ayatollah Santorum would have us looking like the American Taliban in two years.

Doesn't Ron Paul

believe that the CFR, Trilateral Commission, the Biderburgers and others are planning and working towards a world government? I saw that Dr. Paul wrote about them all in his 1980's newsletters so he must believe they exist for that purpose.

This is not conspiracy "theory", it is historical fact. All anyone has to do is look them up on the Internet and they will find abundant evidence. I could even provide some.

Didn't Carroll Quigley Bill Clinton's mentor at university write a book on the subject called "Tragedy and Hope"? Didn't H.G. Wells write a book on the subject entitled "The Open Conspiracy"? To my way of thinking it is simply the process by which international communism as envisaged by Karl Marx is coming into being and it is being used to implement world government by those who believe in that sort of thing, you know, collectivism. It has been in process for more than one hundred and fifty years and the funding mechanism is the global central banking network.

I am very, very surprised to read that Tom whose work I respect and like, actually calls this conspiracy "theory". Tell me it isn't so!

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Yes, he does believe that they are doing that.

He just doesn't call it a conspiracy. He says it's right out in the open. He gave a similar response to a question in the debates of the 2008 run that demonstrates clearly what I just outlined as what he says is his position. He called it something else, similar to a political position or persuasion. The question was in a CNN debate and was placed on a big screen TV supposedly from a CNN viewer. I'm not in the mood to look it up right now, so I'll leave you with the opportunity to sharpen your research skills and find the youtube of it. It is on youtube BTW, because I have since seen it after the original broadcast. I may have even seen it in the last 1.5 yrs. or so.

Edit: Hey, it was easier to find than I thought. This is from the November 28th, 2007 CNN/youtube debate. The beginning of the vid is a little choppy and hangs at 1 second for awhile even though the sound is still going. Just bear with it and it will run smoothly after 10 seconds or so and it is the first question asked of him at the very beginning of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WjiREvZ88&feature=related

Paul.

P.S. About Tragedy and hope, the entire book isn't about the "conspiracy" but it does mention it.

Thanks for the link

I agree 100% with that position. I think I made that clear that it is an open conspiracy and is indeed a battle of ideologies, collectivism vs. individualism. They do try to obscure their intentions from the public however as they did in Europe. If people were told that their national sovereignty is being eroded and that that is the long term plan they may find that harder to swallow.

They are also Fabians in the sense that they believe in incrementalism and the Long March through the institutions to achieve power in depth. They have pretty much achieved this over the past one hundred years or so and are preparing for the synthesis of the Marxist dialectic.

I haven't read Tragedy and Hope myself, just the blurb and brief descriptions of it from others like G. Edward Griffin, so I accept what you say about it. It was my impression that he dealt with the personalities of those working for a world government and in fact was an apologist for the movement. I was also told it was quite turgid so that put me off reading it.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Quigley

It seems to me I had to dig deep into it to find the conspiracy talk but it was nearly 20 years ago so (yes I've been in this fight for that long) and it was pretty dry stuff. He basically agreed with their ideals, his main complaint was that they chose to keep their machinations and works from the public eye. He thought it was such a great idea that it should be made more public.

Paul.

see this one yet?

Santorum says half of all euthanasia in the Netherlands is involuntary.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/301702/20120220/rick-santoru...

waste your vote

This guy lies out his ass every time he opens his mouth to speak. The shit rolls down his cheek like the lies off his tongue. He will do or say anything to win, including selling everyone out. I'll vote for Obama before this hypocrite. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

dave anderson

tasmlab's picture

I was just going to post this

I saw the picture of him and thought he looked like the mouth from Return of the King.

Looks aside, the symbolism is very apropos.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

I very much enjoy Mullen's

I very much enjoy Mullen's blog posts, and I agree with the central theme of this post and many of the things said here. However the inferrence he made here about "evangelical christians" , whether intentional or not, is that Christians are somehow "crazy" for believing that Jerusalem is the Holy City and that the return of Christ, and the subsequent Rapture, can happen at any moment. I believe these things, however I do not consider myself crazy. Nor do I consider people who believe differently than I "crazy." I have, through the past 25 years of my life, which has involved some very powerful moments, including ones in remote Middle Eastern regions where I now believe the only difference between life and death was divine intervention, that have shaped my beliefs and faith. Other people may have gone through experiences so horrific, probably in the same or similar regions of the world, where they have come to the conclusion that there is no god.

That being said, I take it as an affront to Christianity and the teachings of the Bible to legislate morality and so called "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. The second of the Ten Commandents, which is only preceded by God proclaiming that he is in fact the "Lord thy God" making the second of the commandents the first "order" if you will, states "Though shalt have no other gods before me." These "social-statists", by replacing God with government, are essentially breaking the most important of all the commandments. They wish for government to replace the morality that a person strives for when they develop a personal relationship with the Lord and the morality that is taught, not forced, by a church, a pastor, a community, or a family. (I just want to follow this with the disclaimer that I do not believe that if you are an athiest, or agnostic, or a Muslim, or a Jew who does not believe in the writings of the New Testament, that you are somehow incapable of being a moral person)

What "social-statists" miss, and libertarians miss this when arguing with these radicals, is that they often rail against the redistribution of wealth by government because they say that government cant force you with the barrel of a gun to do what is right. But they never seem to equate the same principle to personal behavior.

I am not perfect. I have accepted that a long time ago. And some day I will have to answer for my sins. But I believe that I was made in the image of God, and that by this creation, I was granted free will. The only person who can freely control that will is me. Not a politician, not a bureacrat, and certainly not Rick Santorum.

I have to return some videotapes...

All Laws are based on Morality

It just depends upon who’s morals we want to be deciding our fate. I would rather have legislation based on the morals of Mother Theresa as opposed to the morals of Hitler.

I was recently asked if I could point to a law that is not based on some person’s moral perception. For the life of me, I can’t think of one. Can you?

Well I tend to think that in

Well I tend to think that in a free society (and Im going to go with the view of a minarchist as opposed to an anarchist on this one since the example Im going to use is our own nation and we were founded with a state (small "s") even though many will argue that a truly free society can only exist with anarchy and I am not neccesarily partial to either one more than the other) laws are based on life, liberty and property, and the infringement upon any of these. You have a right to your life, if I attempt to take or control your life, without your consent, and with the coercion of force, then I have commited a "crime." Similarly, if I take your property without your consent, i.e. theft, or by misleading you into giving your consent, i.e. fraud, than I have commited a "crime." Same thing can be applied to your liberty. In a minarchist form of government these crimes are investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated, and punished by the state. All crimes that the state should be responsible for should fall under the violation of these three natural rights. You may find similar concepts in religious teachings and texts such as the 10 Commandments, but I think that this is more a sign of their universiality, and the fact that they are natural rights that come from our humanity, as opposed to any moral or religious significance.

Now if a community comes together, and through the established processes within that community or level of government, decide that they wish to pass a law controlling additional behaviors for whatever reasons moral or other e.g. prohibition of alcohol, banning of pornography, levying of income or property taxes etc, they are fully within their wherewithal to do such things with the consent of the governed. At a national level (this is what Im focusing on due to the fact that this is a thread about a Presidential candidate) the way to do this is through a constitutional amendment. It happened with alcohol prohibition, everyone saw it was a failure, and it ended. It didnt happen with the war on drugs because the powers at be knew that a federal amendment would thrust the impending failure into the limelight and the backdoor dealings with drug cartels and the infringement upon our civil liberties would go largely unnoticed by the masses. It has happened with the income tax and we are finally seeing that even a government who at least attempts to take at the most over a third of some of our most productive members of society cannot keep its books out of the red. The other reason the failure of income taxes goes unnoticed until recently is the fact that the Fed was created, without a constitutional amendment. Im not saying everytime a government amends its own charter to give it a new power that its a good thing, Im saying it is more openly discussed and debated, and the failure/success is more often than not more apparent to a greater number of people.

So overall, no I dont think laws have to be based in morality, nor do I think you need to be moral to abide by them. Who is the judge of morality? You? Me? Rick Santorum? Morality is subjective. A life in Saudi Arabia is not equal if it is the life of a woman. In Nazi Germany a life was not equal if it was the life of a Jew or a black or someone with a birth defect and the property belonging to these people was taken from them without their consent. Everything in the past two sentences were/are taught by religious leaders of these nations as being "moral." Life is life is life. There are people who are judged by some to be morally upstanding that infringe upon it, and there are some who are seen to be morally rehensible who have the utmost respect for another's life and property. A form of government based on these basic rights is a government based in equal laws, and is a government of a free society. A government based in one or a group of persons views of what is moral and not moral, is a government of men, and will inevitably deteriorate into an authoritarian State in which freedom, rights, and individual choice has no place.

I have to return some videotapes...

Your Morals?

You attempt to place your morals on a situation, by even stating liberty as a desire. Even having no laws would be a moral choice, placed upon society.

“who is the judge of Morality?” The person making the laws. If a person making the laws is in favor of liberty, the laws will be aimed toward liberty. If the person making the laws is in favor a tyranny, the laws will be aimed at tyranny.

You can espouse basic rights as something to aspire to, but who decides what those rights are? And if you say those rights are natural who are you to decide these natural rights even exist? The founders believed they were endowed by our creator; even touting this concept within the Declaration was an attempt to replace their moral belief system in order to oppose the tyranny of King George.

We aim toward liberty because of our “moral” desire for freedom. We believe this is the best way to live. Some may believe a life of slavery is the best way for them to live. It lacks any need for responsibility, their basic needs are taken care of, and their freedom isn’t even a question, because they would have no idea what to do with said freedom.

I appreciate your attempt to put your “moral” desire for minarchist, into perspective, but it is still based on “your” Moral code.

You've completely missed the

You've completely missed the crux of my argument. The right to life, liberty, and property do not come from any moral background. They come from our humanity whether you believe as I do that we were created in the image of our Creator or if we are descended from a single-cell organism.

You claim that our founders were moral people, and I do not argue there, and you would be hard pressed to find a halfway intelligent person who would disagree. However, these moral men agreed on the 3/5ths compromise, essentially viewing the life of a black as 3/5ths of that of a white person. These moral men allowed blacks to be robbed of their liberty and forced against their will into servitude of their white masters. So to say that the rights to life and liberty are rooted in morality and that in order to follow these natural laws you have to be moral is completely false. Moral men make mistakes, because they are men, and men are fallible. They will make immoral laws. It is inevitable.

Natural rights are not based on my morals. Read anything from Kant, Locke, or Paine who are considered to be some of the experts on or purveyors of the idea of natural rights. These rights come from the very fact that I exist. If these right are granted to me by some laws based in one persons morality, then they can be robbed from me by another persons view of morality. This is the critical difference between Natural Rights and Legal Rights. A government is put in place to protect these freedoms, not to grant them to me.

The Declaration of Independence was our founding document, not the constitution. The constitution is simply a charter for our general government. In fact during the ratification process many of the men present at the convention did not believe that the bill of rights was neccesary because those rights were inherent to our humanity and were outlined in the founding document of our nation. Fortunately a few wise men that had not yet forgotten the encroachment of their rights by the King knew that the government needed to be bound by the chains of the constitution.

I have to return some videotapes...

In other news

Tom Mullen forgot to google Christianity before trying to write a hit piece on it.

Why are you so obsessive over

Why are you so obsessive over this thread? You've written...what?...4-6 comments and more than 10 replies?

I think what we have here is a rogue Rick Santorum supporter. Him and Paul are not similar in their policies in any way, shape, or form.

And Tom wrote an excellent post displaying the flaws in Rick.

Many Christians have the wrong take on Christianity - in my opinion, you are one of those people.

Because

I want Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination more than anything I've ever wanted in my life as I'm sure everyone here at the DP wants. The problem is, you can't expect to be able to win the nomination of a party by slamming and belittling two-thirds of the voters in that party. It doesn't do Ron Paul any good if we alienate the supporters of the other candidates by attacking their religious belief systems.

Some of you so called "Christians"

are so sensitive. Seems you forget to read your new testament and like to stick with the old one. Didn't Jesus do away with the old law and usher in a new one?

Sorry about the hit piece question. I just couldn't help it.

Jesus came to fulfil

the Law not to destroy it. The principles still operate in the world today manifested either in obedience or disobedience because the Law is the guardian who both leads men to Christ and condemns them to death. Jesus told us that the Law would not pass away until this purpose is fulfilled. At that time God will be all in all and the Law will be written in the hearts of all men. Then we shall do by nature what the Law demands. The Ten Commandments will then be fulfilled as the Ten Promises.

Jesus came to put an end to the Old Covenant which was conditional on obedience and to confirm the New Covenant and indeed all other covenants ever made between God and man by His death on the Cross. As anyone knows every will and testament is made effective by the death of the one making them.

This means that the Law is raised up into a new dimension of meaning for those of us who receive into our spirits, through the new birth, the One who spoke it into existence and whose nature it defines. The Law is being written on the hearts and minds of those who love the Lord Jesus Christ and follow on to know Him in the fellowship of His sufferings so that they might also know Him in the power of His Resurrection. This changes the hearts and minds of believers into the mind and heart of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. This is an ongoing spiritual work accomplished by the Holy Spirit as we yield to Him through faith. This yielding of faith is also instilled in us by God so that we cannot boast that we did it.

The Law no longer exists for us as an external Law written on tables of stone which could never make anyone righteous because of the innate enmity to God in our natural, carnal, mortal mind. This innate enmity to God, this sin in us, the manifestation of death in us which fights the Life of God, takes advantage of the Law and makes us into active sinners, i.e. lawbreakers by nature. The sting of death is sin and the (active) power of sin is the Law as we resist the demands of God (who is Life, Love and Light) to yield to Him and live.

Men apart from God can no more stop sinning than they can stop breathing. They may try to obey the Law by reason and will but they will always fall short of complete obedience. The only man who has ever fully obeyed the Law, i.e. fully yielded to the Father of spirits, is the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, the firstborn son of God, the forerunner of the New Man and the New Creation which we, as believers in Him and followers of Him, are, and in due time all mankind will be.

God became a Man that Mankind might become God. This is the truly Good News of the Kingdom of God.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

"Didn't Jesus do away

with the old law and usher in a new one?" Technically, yes: the Law of Grace. But what does that have anything whatsoever to do with Mullen's hit piece on Christianity? Btw, LB2, how does this help Ron Paul?

It wasn't a hit peice on Christianity

Some of you are so sensitive it makes me want to puke. Mullen merely pointed out that if we are going to consider other people crazy, look at ourselves and think about how Christianity may sound to those who don't believe.

From a logic standpoint, you can call many things crazy, whether they are or not.

How has anything you have ever written helped Ron Paul? I'm doing my part in East Idaho to help get out the vote for the March 6th caucus.

Why do you seem to favor Santorum? You and him could have a libertarian hating orgy if you want. No one on here will stop you.

Well,

I'm doing everything I can in Lower Alabama. I run into people all the time that like BOTH Ron Paul and Rick Santorum but are leaning towards Santorum because of people with the attitudes of Mullen. What Mullen is doing is the equivalent of a Christian trying to convert someone by hitting them over the head with a Bible.

Didn't see.....

anything wrong with what he wrote. And yes there are evangelicals crazy enough to want to start WW3 just so Jesus can come back.....sheesh.

Illegitimi non carborundum!

There isn't a single

Evangelical in the world that believes we have to have a war before Jesus can come back. Understanding Neoconservatives is essential to converting them to Ron Paul. The average Evangelical Neocon supported the war with Iraq because just like non-Evangelical Neocons, they thought Iraq = Muslim, Muslims = 9/11, therefore Iraq = 9/11. They support Santorum's position on Iran because they truly believe Iran might develop a nuke and take Israel out and then become the next U.S.S.R. These peoples' take on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible or their religious beliefs. You've got to remember, a lot of these people grew up during the Cold War. Gingrich and Santorum know this and use it as a scare tactic to get their support.

LOL at the photo. I would

LOL at the photo.

I would caption it:

INVISIBLE PILLOW

Great article

I also enjoyed the youtube video that showed Smirky Santorum being booed as he walked through a crowd -- still smirking.

Makes you wonder if uptight Rick (former Mr. 0.01%) knows something we don't... like what position of power he's been promised to pretend like people actual can stand that smirking, uptight SOB freak & to stay in the race to obscure Ron Paul.

Did I say freak? Oh, yeh, he's a freak.

Ron Paul 2008

"The Peace Candidate Always Wins"

Truthbearer's picture

Yes, the truth is...War does not work!

Hey everyone,

Please take the time to read and comprehend this blog story. It pretty much nails it very well on the head for all to understand.

Pass it on to the war mongers in your family and ask them, are you really ready to give it all up for a little CNN TV warcrimes time? Do you want a future, or not?

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2012/02/consequences-t...

.

The thruth is

many Republicans vote for Santorum out "no other choice." Evangelicals, Glenn Beck crowd, many ordinary republican Christians value Israel as an ally and do not want to see places of Jesus under Sharia Law.
The confusion comes from wrong belief on their part, and among many anti-Semites in RP camp, that cutting aid to Israel will weaken her. When an evangelical visits RP youtube and read comments about Zionists=NWO=UN, he knows he is dealing with loons (since UN is worse enemy to Israel than Iran.) That pushes such a person away from RP.
But at close examination RP foreign policies are GOOD for Israel and should be explained openly. Although, as the numbers show, that may be already too late for this election.
1) Aid to Israel makes Israel dependable and grows socialism there. Israeli socialists gave Sinai & Suetz to Egypt and almost gave Jerusalem to Arafat in 1998.
2) RP will take us out of UN - big help to Israel.
3) RP will unshackle Israel from "Road Map."
4) RP wont prop dictators promoting Sharia Law and let Israel to deal with them freely.

I wouldn't vote for RED Ricky with

Someones elses vote!
As sure as there is winter and summer, I'd lay good money on Rick becoming a heavy handed, war mongering, religious freedom suppressing, oligarch to rival that of Hitler or Pol Pot.

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

If pornography...

If "Pornography" really "causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences.” then what's it doing to the minds of the censors?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

That is the most

uncomfortable smile! Hahahaha! What is loser!

Enonesoch

"uncomfortalbe smile?"

Forgive my pornographic mind, but it looks like he's been caught in the middle of a cumshot.

Freedom is my Worship Word!