From Al Mohler's Blog: Lessons from the 2012 Election

[Crabtownboy]

Al Mohler understands ....

The Demise of the Republican Coalition

Though many Republicans will draw encouragement from the popular vote, the Electoral College now confronts the Republican Party as a massive problem. The map just does not add up for Republicans in terms of the present reality, much less the shape of the future. Put simply, the Republican Party cannot win unless it becomes the party of aspiration for younger Americans and Hispanic Americans. Otherwise, it will soon become a retirement community for aging conservatives. The party’s position on immigration is disastrous, and it is at odds with the party’s own values.

No party can win if it is seen as heartless. No party can win if it appeals only to white and older Americans. No party can win if it looks more like the way to the past than the way to the future. The Republican Party could not defeat a sitting President with a weak economy and catastrophic unemployment. As columnist George Will has said, a party that cannot win under these circumstances might need to look for another line of work.

 

[OldRegular]

From the same blog and same article we can read Mohler's comments about the radical pro abortion Obama and the democrat party!

Crabby's concern for the Republican Party, evidenced by his many threads since the election, is heart wrenching. I am certain that concern is just as sincere as that he exhibits in regard to the continued slaughter of the unborn which his party celebrates.

A Catastrophe on Moral Issues

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/11/07/aftermath-lessons-from-the-2012-election/

Evangelical Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial moral concerns. The election of President Obama returns a radically pro-abortion President to the White House, soon after he had endorsed same-sex marriage. President Obama is likely to have the opportunity to appoint one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are almost sure to agree with his constitutional philosophy.

Furthermore, at least two states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex marriage last night. Washington State is likely to join them once the votes there are counted. An effort to pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage went down to defeat in Minnesota. These came after 33 states had passed some measure defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. After 33 victories, last night brought multiple defeats.

Other states considered issues ranging from abortion and marijuana to assisted suicide. While not all were lost, the moral shift was evident in the voting patterns.

Clearly, we face a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those of us who care passionately about these issues. We face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must learn how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues. This will not be easy. It is, however, an urgent call to action.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Old, again you go off topic. Start a thread on the topic of your reply please.

The point is the Republicans must change their image in the eyes of the American people or they will become a footnote in history.

I do not argue with Mohler in his comments you quoted, but they should be discussed in another thread.

Also, please stop bringing up abortion in every topic. I am against abortion and against capital punishment ... so I am more pro-life than you. You are pro-life, or so you say, for the unborn. But your other stances make you pro-misery and pro-death for the living.

 

[Revmitchell]

From the same blog and same article we can read Mohler's comments about the radical pro abortion Obama and the democrat party!

Thanks for actually posting a link. And yes the Dems are the party of slaughtering unborn children.

 

[OldRegular]

Old, again you go off topic. Start a thread on the topic of your reply please.

The point is the Republicans must change their image in the eyes of the American people or they will become a footnote in history.

I do not argue with Mohler in his comments you quoted, but they should be discussed in another thread.

Also, please stop bringing up abortion in every topic. I am against abortion and against capital punishment ... so I am more pro-life than you. You are pro-life, or so you say, for the unborn. But your other stances make you pro-misery and pro-death for the living.

A pathetic response Crabby. You deny you are pro abortion yet you support verbally and through your votes a rabidly pro abortion president and a party that celebrated the continual slaughter of unborn babies. Frankly I cannot accept your protestations of innocence.

You make remarks about me that have no basis in fact. The democrat platform advocates the continuation of the slaughter of the unborn. There is nothing in the Republican platform or in remarks by Republican candidates that indicate a lack of concern for those in need. As Republicans we believe in individual freedom and responsibility. That is what Scripture teaches, particularly individual responsibility. For your edification, Crabby, I present the following:

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12
6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8. Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9. Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Crabby the democrat party and the leftists which control it, the party you support, strives to make all mankind subservient to the state, not to the God you profess to serve. I believe that Scripture says to you and to all professing Christians:

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

So what say you Crabtownboy? Or will you stand mute before God as did the men of Israel before Elijah?

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't know how angry you have to be to look at someone who is saying they oppose abortion and yell at them saying they're lying and they support abortion.

It's really sad.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I kinda thought a Romney presidency would shut the "anti-abortion" crowd up, like Obama shut the war protestors up.

 

[Jack Matthews]

There is no interest among the leadership of the Republican party in ending abortion on demand. If there were, the many opportunities they had to have done so would not have slipped through their hands. I think they've done what they've done deliberately, to keep it as a front burner issue, to keep the religious right pinned in a corner where it winds up giving almost unqualified support to GOP candidates in exchange for practically no cost politically to the party.

You can see the level of respect the Republicans have for conservative Christians in everything they do, from a litany of broken promises, to nominating a cultist as a presidential candidate. What happens to the conservative, born again Christians who try to run? Where are they? Most likely kicked to the curb is where they are.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know how angry you have to be to look at someone who is saying they oppose abortion and yell at them saying they're lying and they support abortion.

It's really sad.

Anyone who supports the democrat party at this time is supporting abortion and that is the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts doesn't it!

In their last convention the democrats spent some time glorifying the slaughter of the unborn. This is worse than the pagans, and on occasion some Israelites, who caused their children to "pass through the fire".

 

[OldRegular]

There is no interest among the leadership of the Republican party in ending abortion on demand. If there were, the many opportunities they had to have done so would not have slipped through their hands. I think they've done what they've done deliberately, to keep it as a front burner issue, to keep the religious right pinned in a corner where it winds up giving almost unqualified support to GOP candidates in exchange for practically no cost politically to the party.

You can see the level of respect the Republicans have for conservative Christians in everything they do, from a litany of broken promises, to nominating a cultist as a presidential candidate. What happens to the conservative, born again Christians who try to run? Where are they? Most likely kicked to the curb is where they are.

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the legislative process. The Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2004, the first time in 40 years. They introduced and twice passed a bill to ban Partial Birth Abortion. The bill passed the Senate and went to "that good old Southern Baptist" Bill Clinton who twice vetoed the bill. When Bush was elected president the Republican Congress passed the bill for the third time and George Bush signed it into law.

There existed the possibility that if Romney were elected president he would be able to appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court increasing the possibility of a Court decision reversing Roe v Wade.

I know of no democrat who ever introduced legislation to ban any abortion procedure! Do You?

 

[kyredneck]

...make that 1994 and you will be correct...

 

[Jack Matthews]

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the legislative process. The Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2004, the first time in 40 years. They introduced and twice passed a bill to ban Partial Birth Abortion. The bill passed the Senate and went to "that good old Southern Baptist" Bill Clinton who twice vetoed the bill. When Bush was elected president the Republican Congress passed the bill for the third time and George Bush signed it into law.

There existed the possibility that if Romney were elected president he would be able to appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court increasing the possibility of a Court decision reversing Roe v Wade.

I know of no democrat who ever introduced legislation to ban any abortion procedure! Do You?

A ban on partial birth abortion, which essentially did nothing, was not the goal. That was a bone thrown to quiet the dogs, and it wasn't much of a bone. Ronald Reagan originally promised to end abortion on demand. Reagan had promised "to appoint only those opposed to abortion and the 'judicial activism' of the Warren and Burger Courts". Those were his exact words. However, though his appointees alone could have tipped the court, his first appointee, Sandra Day O"Conner, was neither pro-life, nor anti-activist. As it turned out, she was the perpetual "swing vote." The argument about Robert Bork not being confirmed does not hold water. Congress eventually approved Anthony Kennedy, who had a stronger pro-life record than Bork did. If he'd stuck with his promise, and nominated someone other than O'Connor, the court would have overturned Roe before he left office.

His successor, George H.W. Bush, was only "pro-life" to get elected. He nominated David Souter, who is one of the most liberal justices on the court, and not only pro-choice. Fearing Christians would not support his bid for re-election, he appointed Clarence Thomas, but that only put the court back to 5-4, pro-choice.

The best chance to tip the balance came with George W. Bush. He had two shots at it, and a majority of both houses of Congress controlled by his party for six years. Shouldn't have been a problem. But Bush first went with John Roberts, who declared Roe v. Wade to be "the settled law of the land," and then attempted to appoint his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, who was favorable to both abortion on demand and gay marriage. Fortunately, conservatives derailed her appointment, and he wound up appointing Alito, but with Roberts as the "swing voter," after three GOP presidents, the Supreme Court is still 5-4 pro-abortion. I think that's because the Republicans want it that way.

 

[Aaron]

The reality of the situation is that the electorate must be converted or stricken. Sodom sought to kill Lot when he refused to let them rape his guests, and the Jews preferred Absalom over David and Barabbas over Jesus. The fault is not in a party that says no to women murdering their unborn children, to the sanctification and legitimization of sodomy, or to theft, oppression, poverty and slavery through taxes. The fault is in a gluttonous and idolatrous electorate.

 

[SolaSaint]

Maybe in 2010 when the Tea Party came about, we all should have jumped on board and maybe now it would have out grown the GOP. I say throw out the old GOP and make the Tea Party our party.

 

[mont974x4]

Maybe in 2010 when the Tea Party came about, we all should have jumped on board and maybe now it would have out grown the GOP. I say throw out the old GOP and make the Tea Party our party.

I like it.....mainly because I can see Bob Beckel and Michael Moore and other liberals get all red faced and blustery....that makes for good TV. LOL

 

[OldRegular]

A ban on partial birth abortion, which essentially did nothing, was not the goal. That was a bone thrown to quiet the dogs, and it wasn't much of a bone. Ronald Reagan originally promised to end abortion on demand. Reagan had promised "to appoint only those opposed to abortion and the 'judicial activism' of the Warren and Burger Courts". Those were his exact words. However, though his appointees alone could have tipped the court, his first appointee, Sandra Day O"Conner, was neither pro-life, nor anti-activist. As it turned out, she was the perpetual "swing vote." The argument about Robert Bork not being confirmed does not hold water. Congress eventually approved Anthony Kennedy, who had a stronger pro-life record than Bork did. If he'd stuck with his promise, and nominated someone other than O'Connor, the court would have overturned Roe before he left office.

His successor, George H.W. Bush, was only "pro-life" to get elected. He nominated David Souter, who is one of the most liberal justices on the court, and not only pro-choice. Fearing Christians would not support his bid for re-election, he appointed Clarence Thomas, but that only put the court back to 5-4, pro-choice.

The best chance to tip the balance came with George W. Bush. He had two shots at it, and a majority of both houses of Congress controlled by his party for six years. Shouldn't have been a problem. But Bush first went with John Roberts, who declared Roe v. Wade to be "the settled law of the land," and then attempted to appoint his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, who was favorable to both abortion on demand and gay marriage. Fortunately, conservatives derailed her appointment, and he wound up appointing Alito, but with Roberts as the "swing voter," after three GOP presidents, the Supreme Court is still 5-4 pro-abortion. I think that's because the Republicans want it that way.

The ban on Partial Birth Abortions was and is insufficient but it was passed and signed into law by Republicans.

As for Supreme Court appointees no one knows how these people will rule until they get on the Court. Roe v Wade may be "settled law" as Roberts said but that does not mean he would not vote to overturn it. With Romney there was a possibility of another vote against Roe v Wade. With Obama there is none.

In the meantime the American Holocaust continues whole professing Christians make excuses for voting for the party of death!

 

[LadyEagle]

There is no interest among the leadership of the Republican party in ending abortion on demand. If there were, the many opportunities they had to have done so would not have slipped through their hands. I think they've done what they've done deliberately, to keep it as a front burner issue, to keep the religious right pinned in a corner where it winds up giving almost unqualified support to GOP candidates in exchange for practically no cost politically to the party.

You can see the level of respect the Republicans have for conservative Christians in everything they do, from a litany of broken promises, to nominating a cultist as a presidential candidate. What happens to the conservative, born again Christians who try to run? Where are they? Most likely kicked to the curb is where they are.

Well, Jack Matthews, this is one time I agree with you. I quit giving to the Pro-Life groups a long time ago when I realized that during the GW Bush tenure during the several years when there was a Republican WH, and Republican majority Senate, and Republican majority House, the abortion issue could have been settled by Law. (Much as obamacare was passed to be the law of the land.) Every time the GOP calls me about donating and brings up the abortion issue, I remind them of these facts.

Republicans have demonstrated they have no will to win the war, barely the will to win small battles, save for a handful who were Tea Party elected in 2010 - and I mean this goes for everything, every issue, not just abortion. Republicans are either inept or lack the fortitude to play hardball - even Mitt Romney just did not go there and that is part of the reason he lost.

I have observed that there are a bunch of RINOs, who are not "conservative" by any means, in the Republican party, and they only put a conservative hat on when they think it will score political points, but their value system is really not conservative.

Sorry to be off topic, CTB, but even with this Benghazi situation and the murders there.... The American people have demonstrated that they don't care about Benghazi and the media has all but forsaken the tragedy (except for Fox News). Republicans have held hearing after hearing and it makes great shots for FNC but basically, the American people do not care, a large part of the electorate don't even know who the VP is or that Hillary is SOS, and are completely happy bumbling along, living off whatever freebies they can get, and doing deals under the table to supplement the food stamps.

In short, the American people (at least the majority of those who voted last month) don't care about aborted babies, do care they can get free abortions and birth control pills, do care about "free cell phones" etc., don't care about Benghazi, don't care about fiscal cliffs, don't care about illegal immigration, don't care about politics or the economy or our troops fighting in godless places, don't care about freedoms being taken away, don't care about jobs being lost, and just don't care, period. Anyway, that's my take on it, based on the election results.

And guess what, I can see that BOTH parties are so corrupt, that our nation is so morally bankrupt, that I see America completely destroyed from within within the next generation or sooner.


Edited to say:

The fault is in a gluttonous and idolatrous electorate.

Amen. :tear:

 

[Havensdad]

Also, please stop bringing up abortion in every topic. I am against abortion and against capital punishment ... so I am more pro-life than you.

No you are not. You believe murderers should be left alive to kill again and again! That is DEFINITELY pro-death!

:tonofbricks:

 

[Jack Matthews]

With Romney there was a possibility of another vote against Roe v Wade.

No, not really. Most people don't understand that this isn't a matter of passing a bill. It would require a state passing legislation restricting abortion, and law suits going through the courts until it was appealed to the Supreme Court. If they decided not to hear it, the legislation would be nullified, and right now, with Roberts' position clear, it's at best 5-4 pro-choice. Congress cannot pass a law that violates the provisions of a decision upheld by the court.

Romney suddenly became pro-life after a political career and record that established him as pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion. His position essentially depended on nothing but lip service. And his Mormon faith doesn't hold to a "life begins at conception" position. I wouldn't want to depend on a Mormon to deliver on this, but I don't think there would have been any worries. He had no intention of doing so.

Being a constituency in the Republican party, the Christian right has gained nothing. It has loyally supported the GOP. In return, it is expected to help raise money and get out votes, but in return, it has received next to nothing. The party, knowing the sensitivity of conservative Christians when it comes to their faith and doctrine, allowed a Mormon, cult follower to be nominated for President instead of one of their own. What does that tell you?

 

[LadyEagle]

I can agree with you up to a point, but:

The party, knowing the sensitivity of conservative Christians when it comes to their faith and doctrine, allowed a Mormon, cult follower to be nominated for President instead of one of their own. What does that tell you?

He was nominated because he won the primary.

I admit, we had a pretty pitiful field to pick from, though.