Romney: If the Cnstitution would allow, I'd grab your Freedom

Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential bid because of his liberal beliefs; he lost in a landslide because of a single reply to a question at one of the debates.

At the Dukakis-Bush debate the moderator, Bernard Shaw questioned Dukakis:

”If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Dukakis replied with a cold no and reiterated his stance against the death penalty, ultimately portraying him as soft on crime thus marking the end of his candidacy.

I am explicitly not comparing Dukakis to Romney, though I am drawing a comparison of Dukakis’s reply and the effect of it to a reply Romney made at the debate last Thursday.

Romney, if and when defeated, will lose because of his support of many liberal issues and flip flops. The defining moment which may cause a landslide loss, may have already occurred. August 11th at the Iowa Republican debate, Romney responded to Pawlenty’s attack of Obamneycare, that Obamacare and Romneycare are equal, in the following manner:

ROMNEY:There are some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there are some big differences. And one is, I believe in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people.

We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine. And if I’m president of the United States, on my first day, I’ll direct the secretary of HHS to grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.

WALLACE: But, Governor — and this is — this is your one-minute question. Do you think that government at any level has the right to make someone buy a good or service just because they are a U.S.mresident? Where do you find that authority, that mandating authority, government making an individual buy a good or service in the Constitution?

ROMNEY: And let — and let me tell you — where do I find it in the constitution? Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am. And the Massachusetts constitution allows states, for instance, to say that our kids have to go to school. It has that power.

Oh. So Obamacare is bad because the federal government is imposing on all citizens of all fifty states to purchase health care. On the other hand, Romneycare is good because it imposed health care mandates only on all the districts and all the citizens of the single state of Massachusetts. And Obamacare is wrong because the tenth amendment in the federal constitution bans it while Romneycare is good because the state constitution allows it. Got it? So if he could only find some loophole to impose his will on all the people of the entire country, then he’d go for it without any doubts.

Yes, the constitution limits the control of the federal government. The reason the founding fathers have done so was not to limit their own power; they had no intention to expand the size of government. It was done as a measure of safeguarding the freedom of the people of future corrupt politicians.

At a time of too much government, do we need a president who wants to limit and shrink the size of government regardless of what’s written in the constitution, or do we need a politician who has expanded the size of government to the greatest degree permitted according to the state constitution?

And have you noticed his example of kids being forced to attend school? Firstly, isn’t homeschooling an option? (MA happens to be one of the only two states which require parents to obtain approval prior to homeschooling but parents still have the option.) Additionally, education is provided by the government at no cost to the recipients (tax-funded of course!) Most importantly, has Romney decided to extend the “kid” aspect onto all citizens with the government playing the role of the “parent” forcing its “kids” how to live their lives?

All voters should be infuriated to discover that Mitt Romney’s only reason for not snatching your freedom is because it’s forbidden according to the constitution. I am a young writer and will admit that I’m not familiar with the constitution of Massachusetts. But if a candidate runs as a conservative and the only issue he has of stripping citizens from their freedom is if it’s permitted according to the constitution, then how can such a candidate claim to serve in the interest of the people?

And although it’s difficult to believe that the constitution of Massachusetts explicitly allows the government to force its citizens to purchase something, with liberals in control anything may be possible.

This article is cross posted from Conservatives4Palin

Why Not everyone is wrong about the Gay Marriage Debate

This is a diary I've written on Red State in response to a diary written by Shoutbits which was posted on Red State the 27^th of June. It was titled “Everyone is wrong on gay marriage” and was written several days after New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage last week Friday.

Shoutbits argues that the gay community has not accomplished much with the legalization of gay marriage in New York because what they truly crave is for acceptance from society and this has not and will not cause those who oppose them to have a change of belief. The only thing they’ve gained was to have the same legal benefits the law provides for married couples. On the other hand, conservatives are wrong for wanting the government to ban gay marriage and define marriage, because they should really be fighting to keep the government totally out of marriage.

What bothered me so greatly about his diary which compelled me to do more than comment, but to write a diary in response, is because the debate regarding gay marriage is really not whether it is or isn’t acceptable because if you look past in the history of this world at every country and religion and every moral person believed in traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage and homosexuality has never been accepted. The debate regarding gay marriage is whether the government should recognize homosexuals as a form and definition of marriage.

Shoutbits wrote:

The government should not endorse gay marriage; the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Most of all, nobody should look to the government for validation of his life or defense of his religion. The governments of the US are corrupt, capricious, and are the biggest threat to the nation’s survival. Why should anyone expect such bodies to arbitrate morals?

When this country was founded as a country by religious people it wasn’t considered as such, not because the government got involved but because the concept of calling homosexuals as married simply didn’t exist.

This is proven because before the last couple of decades when conservatives and liberals took positions on this topic and involved the government, no one in the first over two hundred years requested the government to intervene because it was automatically understood that marriage has only one definition. Doing something immoral doesn’t constitute as marriage, and calling it as such doesn’t make the act a moral thing to do.

Human beings of all times, have always understood and believed that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and woman, thus there had been no request to change the definition of marriage. Morality is something that each of us has been created with, and someone that does or believes in immorality goes against the grain of his/her nature. This is proven with the fact that all animals follow the true definition of marriage, because they too have been created as such. Humans who have been given the power to choose between good and evil, unlike animals which lead their lives based on ingrained instinct, must rise to do that which is correct. Otherwise, such humans are considered worse than animals, which do what’s right without thought.

This world has already experienced a time when society totally crumbled and all moral behavior fall aside, as happened in the days of Noah.

The Big Flood which came because of the erosion of any semblance of morality. The filth and impurity of the people caused the animals to act immorally as well. In order to save the existence of the world which couldn’t handle the collapse of morality, Noah was commanded to build an Ark in which he, his family, and pairs of animals which have not practiced immorality resided while the rest of the world was cleansed of impurity.

There is a right side and wrong side to this debate, as in most issues, and in this case those who have been and are continuing to oppose those that are attempting to change the definition of marriage and are for the legalization of gay marriage  definition, are on the right side. For anyone claiming that homosexuals are part of the society and there’s no point in opposing them, it must be pointed out that any state that had given the voters the option to vote on gay marriage including liberal California, has always resulted in the people voting against it. They did so not because of non-acceptance, but for the refusal to allow the values that America has been built on to go down the moral drain.

This country has already faced a moral decision when deciding whether it’s pro-life or pro-choice. The result has been that anyone speaking out against abortion is accused of having no mercy on rape victims and as someone who doesn’t want to provide rape victims with the help they require. A fetus/unborn child has already lost its rights and its value has been reduced to a mass of tissue.

The path of the gay activists and equal rights fighters are leading to the destruction of the value of marriage. Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a male and a female through which future generations were created and raised. Gay marriage has no future besides for destroying the moral values of society.

Opposition against gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or acceptability. People who oppose homosexuals simply take issue with the values those people display. To them it’s strictly a question of morality and whether they take the moral or immoral side of the issue. And moral issues are not something they take lightly or are flexible about in the least bit.