Home >> 2012 Election News >> A Libertarian’s Battle Cry on Super Tuesday

A Libertarian’s Battle Cry on Super Tuesday

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “A Libertarian’s Battle Cry on Super Tuesday”.

READ:  It’s Not Fake News, It’s Lying, Leftist, Political Propaganda

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Lauri Bohanan

No comments

  1. Michael James Gleason

    You have not read Original Intent by David Barton or you would never say we must preserve the separation of church and state. Barton’s book is the new textbook on the subject that contains the most thoroughly documented records of the founding fathers beliefs about religion and its inseparable connection with good government. It has the most extensive source material referencing I have ever seen in a book designed to inform the average reader as to the true nature of government, and I speak as a former school teacher.

    My personal opinion is that libertarianism suffers from a lack of respect for historical context. The great libertarian Patrick Henry’s attitude toward religion and government will surprise you. He is quoted often by Barton.

    The Founding Fathers would not approve of today’s liberal detachment of humans rights from Judeo/Christian undertanding of human life, right to life and the mandate found in Genesis to “multiply and replenish the earth” and since we are fast approaching zero population growth in America that alone is proof positive we are far afield of the truth in respect to reproductive rights. Children are a heritage of the Lord and happy is the man whose quiver is full of them. So said the Psalmist David.

    We are failing to understand and appreciate the historical and cultural background which guided the thinking of the founders as they established this nation. They clearly understood that mankind cannot rule himself without Divine inspiration and guidance. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. If the Son shall set you free you shall be free indeed.”

    America doesn’t need a new revolution. It needs a Reformation and revival after the kind that inspired the world in the personages of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

    Santorum is closer to their piety than the other two candidates who will simply continue the progressive movement away from that of the original intent for America the founders dreamed of.

  2. I must disagree with the premise that Senator Santorum would rule over us like the Pope. From what I have read and investigated myself, he has stated that he would not impose his personal beliefs on all Americans. He would govern according to the principles of his faith, but allow people to live their own lives.

    Also, this mentality of “we can’t afford to offend anybody”, combined with a lack of fortitude to withstand name calling and mudslinging, is what has brought to the dangerous edge of the cliff where we stand as a nation.

    While Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have their problems as ideal candidates, I will vote for either of them long before I pull for Obama with a MBA (Romney) or Dr. Paul.

  3. I couldn’t disagree more. I respect the libertarian view point, but I think as a conservative I would have to support whatever GOP candidate won the primaries, including Santorum. We are all looking for that perfect “Frankenstein” candidate. A little of Dr. Paul, a little of Newt, a smattering of Romney, the part without the healthcare mandate, and a little of dare I say, Rick Santorum. We have to unite behind a candidate and give him the tools to beat Obama, and stop beating ourselves up. We need to save our strength for victory.

    Thanks for your post Lauri.

    • I agree wholeheartedly that we will have to unite behind the eventual nominee, but I believe 1) Rick Santorum could never beat Obama (primarily because of his extremist social views) and 2) his candidacy would set the GOP/Libertarian movement back decades. Both of these beliefs compel me to fight against a Santorum nomination more passionately than I would fight against a Gingrich or Romney one. On the foreign policy issue, I’d fight just as strongly against a Paul vote (if he were surging like Santorum).

      I think I see your point that the infighting doesn’t help the eventual nominee. However, I just feel strongly that we can’t afford to put someone on the top of our ticket who will lead to our downfall, and that’s what I think a Santorum nomination would do.

      Thanks for reading my post and taking time to comment on it!