The American Spectator

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 6:16AM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 6:52AM

Chickenhawk Rick endorsed and worked for abortion lover snalin Arlen Spector. He also endorsed the rabid pro abort Christie Todd Whitman. This Bush wantabe loves wars that he doesn't have to fight in. No prowar Republican, candidate can ever be elected President again. The people in huge majorities have had it with people like Santorum. That is why he was destroyed in his last election to the Senate. He is just another bum of the month pumped by Lush Bimbaugh and the talk radio blowhards. He isn't as pretty as Bachman, as personable as Cain, electable in his home state as Perry, or as smart as Gingrich. He is truely the neocons bottom of the barrel.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:01AM

More nonsensical drivel from our resident Jew hater.

Tell us all about Ru Paul's earmarks, Mr. Purity.

Alan Brooks| 1.5.12 @ 8:35PM

"More nonsensical drivel from our resident Jew hater."

Well I am tired of your Arab-hating disguised as Islamist-hating.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:08AM

I also find it hilarious that Mr. "Proud 4-F", who's daddy told him it was "better to be a live coward," should call anyone a "chickenhawk."

Coward.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:23PM

You're 31, Israel Firster Smear Bund Toughie Girl, Con Job

Why Didn't You Go & Fight The Evil Muslims ?

Hmmmmmmmm Neo-Chickenhawk Coward ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Smear Bund Girl, Con Job.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 3:42PM

Because I had ulcerative colits & had my colon removed. I still went down to volunteer. I couldn't because of my surgery. And it was one of the worst days of my life.

As opposed to "proud 4-F" Jack. So tell me when YOU tried to sign up, coward.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 5:04PM

Yeah Right !
You Had Your Balls Removed, Israel Firster Smear Bund Neo-Chickenhawk, Mouth, Con Job.

Unlike You Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk, Con Job I Ain't An Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Tryin' To Use Our American Warriors For Cannon Fodder & Our Treasury To Finance Your Israel Firster Agenda,Coward ConJob.

The Tea Party Rebellion Just Steped On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Toughie Girl's 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Mouth.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:51PM

Stepped, Clint. Thought I'd help.

How do you "step on" anything with Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome, third turd?

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:52PM

You still didn't answer the question, Clint. You were a varsity football player at an NCAA dicvision I football team. Why didn't you sign up, given your hero Dad?

I mean, even I tried.

Alan Brooks| 1.5.12 @ 8:39PM

I don't blame Clint anymore. And why would he want to fight for you? All those thousands of Servicemen who died in Iraq and Ashcanistan died merely so the Rove-Cheney administration could write its memoirs.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:59PM

Last I checked, it was still an all volunteer service, moron.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:04PM

I love being lectured on a bout "balls" by some pansy who never even TRIED to volunteer. At least Jack admitted he TRIED, yet was a "proud 4-F." All you've apparently done is make up some bullshit hero father who was the second coming of Sgt. York in WWII. All this, we're supposed to believe, while you write like a 3rd grader, when, if you were old enough to have a father who's that old, would never write in the manner you do.

You're a joke, Clint. You never even THOUGHT to serve your nation. You're just content to trade on your "Dad's" fictitious "service." You're a coward, a fraud & a punk. But most everybody here knew that already.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:10PM

Yeah, we have a real choice, don't we? We can choose Romney, a stuck up rich boy who is domestically little different from Obama, and a foreign policy wack job. Or there's Santorum who is principled on social matters, in a country that is increasingly squishy on such matters, and spendaholic, a trade wack job, and Wilsonian foreign policy wack job. Or Newt, who is just a progressive wack job. Or Paul, who knows what's wrong domestically, and knows what needs to be done, but is a foreign policy wack job.

I think Mittens is going to get the nod, and when that happens you will see the Obamabots light up the world with Mittens record as Mass Gov. They's use his record to beat him like a drum and show there almost no substantive difference between the two of them. When that happens the US electorate rarely turns out the incumbent, no matter how sorry he is.

I really would like to be wrong, but I think 1/20/2013 will see the Obummer's 2nd inaugural.

carnot| 1.7.12 @ 12:13AM

only three sorts are gonna vote for O:

1) those who benefit from government redistribution

2) All those sweet East/West Coast Liberals & Progressives who have made their money first and now feel empowered to take ours

3) those who hate America

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.5.12 @ 8:57AM

How long have I been writing about DICTATORSHIP 101? How long have I been saying that this guy is a Dictator, and he's getting away with it, because we have a sycophantic Press, only too happy to Inform us of his Greatness, and Cover Up the rest?

We heard, in 2008, when his ASSOCIATIONS with Communists, and Marxists, and Socialists, and Maoists, and Anarchists were brought up, that WE WERE GUILTY of perpetrating "Guilt by Association". We were lectured that 'Birds of a Feather', don't necessarily 'Flock Together'. And we were derided as RACISTS, when we used the words of CHRIST: "Men shall know you bye the company you keep".

Yesterday, the Man with his Life's Documentation SEALED in a Vault, on an Island State, in the Middle of the Ocean, Crossed the Rubicon. He picked up a Hammer, walked over to the Library of Congress, smashed the case that holds the Constitution, and WIPED HIS *SS with it.

He has decided, by himself, that "I" am not gonna stand by, while a Minority (Irony, anyone?) in the Senate is doing things that will harm this Economy (Projection) while I'm trying to save the Middle Class." (Lie)

"I'm" not gonna stand here. "I'm" not gonna allow it.

I thought he was a Constitutional Professor? I thought that he taught the Constitution? Of course, that was all just one more LIE, from the Media. One more LIE from people like Historian: Michael Beschloss, who told Don Imus that Obama is probably the Smartest person to ever be President, and that his I.Q. "is off the Charts". When asked, by Imus, if he knew what his I.Q. was? Beschloss replied: "I have NO IDEA, but I'm sure that it's really high".

He HIDES his Records, in a Vault, like the Vatican would hide something that would PROVE that there's no GOD. Obamas' Acolytes preach the MYTH about the Man, and it's up to the rest of us, to Prove otherwise.

He was in the U.S. Senate when Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer, and all of the rest of the SCUM, did the exact same thing, while George Bush was President, as the Republicans are doing, now. Back then, we were told by a Watchdog Media, that The Senate is the Saucer, where things cool down. We were told that the Founding Fathers set it up this way, ON PURPOSE.

We’re not told that, anymore.

Where's the Media? Where's ABC, CBS, NBC, and NPR? They all KNOW this to be true. He's in Direct Confrontation with the Constitution, AGAIN. Everybody knows it, and yet, so far, nobody's doing anything.

"All that Evil needs, to succeed, is for Good Men to do Nothing."

He doesn't talk with his Cabinet. He doesn't talk with Congressional Leaders. And, why should he? Did King George do these things? Did Napoleon? Did Hitler? Did Kim Jung Il?

If he isn't Stopped now? We're looking at Civil War. Anyone, who LOVES THIS COUNTRY, and would wish this guy harm? Might just find themselves, out of options. There's 360 Million people here. And it only takes 1.

To our Friends at the Secret Service: You know your OATH. It's to the Constitution. It's not to HIM. It's to the Constitution. When you take that Oath, you swear to PROTECT the Constitution from all enemies, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.

How do you Define: Domestic Enemy? What are the Parameters? Can a President, ever be that Domestic Enemy? This President is tearing down the Fabric of this Republic. He has divided us in to 2 Camps. We look more and more like present day IRAQ, than we do, The United States of America. We are running out of time.

I have Faith that GOD will not permit this THING to go on long enough, to Destroy this Country. And I believe that, somewhere out there, someone will do what's right, and put an end to the ATTROCITIES, that are being perpetrated against the American people, on an almost Daily Basis.

This needs to be Fixed, through the Proper Channels of Government - The House and the Senate - and through the Media. Otherwise, in a Country of 360 Million people, someone out there might end up feeling FORCED, to fix it the Wrong Way.

I'm just saying.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 10:11AM

Tim:
One needs to keep open the possibility that the nation has been "weighed in the balance and found wanting" and judged accordingly. Our rampant idolotry, the worship of Choice, Diversity, Gaia, Tolerance and so on may just invite that judgement. Certainly a remnant will survive but there is no gurantee that the nation as an entity will.

However, "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray...I will restore their land." The fight is a bigger one than we realize.

Mike D.| 1.5.12 @ 10:31AM

This fight is the LAST fight and it is indeed bigger than this country.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:16PM

This election is the last election of the Culture War. The Kultursmog is closing in, and all the GOP can give us is a reincarnation of McShamnesty and Dole.

9/11 was a warning, and few listened. Yeah, a lot of people waved the flag and showed they were great Americans. A few people showed some religiosity, but little repentance. We kept murdering babies and destroying families.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The US has been weighed, found wanting, and judgment is set. Obama's first term was just the beginning.

aware| 1.6.12 @ 6:50AM

"...when we used the words of CHRIST: "Men shall know you bye the company you keep"."

Exactly when did Christ "say" this? Simple, he DIDN'T. Paul said bad company ruins good character, but that's as close as it gets to your assertion. I wish people would study Scripture seriously. It was the enemies of Christ that judged Him by His company of prostitutes and tax collectors that lived by that motto.

I agree with the thrust of your post, but its way too late to start acting like the constitution means anything definite now. About a hundred years too late. And trying to act like its only Democrats shredding it is as untrue as your quote from Christ. Especially the week after the McCain/Graham sponsored NDAA was signed. Where was the "conservative media"on this? I even heard one talk show blabbermouth claim it wasn't what it is! Hardly a peep at all here.

The fear and loathing you feel for Obama would be proper to feel for all of government. You should feel this way no matter who is running it because of the corrupting influence of power.

If you think the Lord can't or won't shove us into the ash bin as He has done to countless others, you are deluding yourself. Child sacrifice(abortion), a financial system that punishes prudence while rewarding the powerful and connected, corrupt courts, a muzzled religious system more afraid of losing tax exempt status than the fires of Hell, and rulers enriching themselves at the expense of the nation. Not to mention blatant idolatry with money and self as the leading idols and worse, a degenerate citizenry that likes it this way as long as bread and circuses continue unabated.

The ingredients are all there and the warnings go unheeded. Like Judah, we keep trusting political leaders, military power and sheer arrogance of thinking God is with us no matter how we act to get us through. We can hope that when Ezekiel's club bearing destroyers show up, and they will, the guy with the writer's case will have marked the forehead of those who weep and sigh at the sin they see around them so at least they will have God's protection.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:02AM

Boo-hoo! We lost our asses in Iowa, so that means we're being "set up." What a pathtic bunch of loser putzes.

The Pee Party of Clint heads to the east coast to get its ass kicked worse than it did in Iowa.

Marco2| 1.5.12 @ 9:56AM

Jesus, man, can't you write anything else but this twaddle day after day, night after night? Hasn't it dawned on you yet that Dr. Dweeb has already shot his wad? As we say here in Tejas, adios muchachos!

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:01PM

Yes, off go the Paulbots to the Est Coast---there to be crushed in battle, like Joachim Peiper's troops, who they closely resemble.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:17PM

The antiPaultards are just as tedious and repellant. I am as sick of those morons as much as I am of Clint and Jack.

aware| 1.6.12 @ 6:54AM

A big amen to that!

senecasd| 1.5.12 @ 6:40AM

This article really boils down to two things:
1. Romney will win the nomination.
2. Santorum has policy positions that will make things difficult for him in the general election.

What the author doesn't state is the following:
1. Romney is extremely suspect on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. He has shown no political courage on these issues. Who would trust him to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court and the US Ct of Appeals?
2. Romney is vulnerable on the healthcare issue in a way Santorum is not, and that is because of Romneycare. His position on that will make it a virtual nonissue in the general election if he is the nominee.
3. If Santorum is the nominee, the debate in the general election will be about the direction of the country. If Romney is the nominee, it will be about who is the better manager. Santorum presents sharp contrasts with Obama in a way that Romney doesn't.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 7:02AM

Santoum is unlikeable, unelectable, even in Pennsylvania, and with his rabid pro war program totally unacceptable. The people, in huge majorities, are against any more wars, and want nothing to do with a chickenhawk, lobbyist like Santorum. It has always been a fight between the old guard , with Willard Romney and the young insurgents, of Ron Paul.Tthey are the only ones with a national following and organization to fight till the convention. Few young people, disaffected Democrats, or Independents are going to vote for Santorum.

Fred| 1.5.12 @ 5:18PM

Jack, It's ungentlemanly to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, so I'll just say the following and leave it at that:
1. Ron Paul is a nutcase who will never be close to a nomination unless he runs a third party candidacy and will certainly never be president (thank God).
2. The "chickenhawk" argument is a particularly stupid form of ad hominem. Whether Bush or Santorum or anyone else ever fought in a war has absolutely zero to do with whether any particular war is or is not in America's national interest. Name calling, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, is the last refuge of a man without an argument.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:02PM

Right Said Fred.

Beautifully done.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 7:24PM

The man, Occam, who calls for mass murder and nuclear genocide is sane, but people who call for peace and honesty in politics are crazy. I am very happy Santorum is going to be the Neocon's poster boy. He will certainly turn most of the population off of war. He is as dumb as a stump, and as bloodthirsty as anyone in political life. I predicted the demise of Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. Santorum will soon join them all. I have been a pro-life activist for decades. Santorum with his warmongering is a disgrace to both the Catholic religion and the pro life movement. He can't disappear too fast for me.

I guess it is another 4 years for Obama. This party is splitting into a thousand pieces. The Bush's, McCain, Dole, Romney, Obama, the Clintons, Gore McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi are all birds of a feather. The hell with all of them. Any party that puts stuff like the Patriot Act, the Dept of Homeland Security, the Defense authorization act, The TSA, Torture, endless war, endless foreign aid to kleptocrats like the Israeli's and the Arabs deserves to be destroyed. The National Republicans are about to become a rump party, like the parties in Illinois, New York, and Californa. They are going to be as independent as the old opposition parties allowed in the GDR.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 6:50PM

Thank you Mr Singh.

D. Singh| 1.6.12 @ 3:23AM

Mister

My comment was directed at: senecasd| 1.5.12 @ 6:40AM.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 7:01PM

Chickenhawk is very apt for a person like Santorum. He was voted the dumbesrt man in the Senate and was booted from office in a record landslide. He was an outspoken warhawk at the time. Chickenhawk refers to people like Santorum who love war and blood and guts as long as it isn't theirs. Ron Paul has already won. The people will never vote for someone like Santorum who wants to start an agressive war and bomb and kill people, for no reason. Romney might win if he becomes more peaceable. Santorum never.

Plaaning for and propagandizing for, participating in an aggressive war is a war crime. many German generals,were hung for that, and many more wnt to jail for it. At least one journalist, Julius Streicher, who propoganized for it, was hung as well

Fred| 1.7.12 @ 6:48PM

Jack, Although I'm aware of the futility of arguing with drunks, lunatics, children, and Paul-bots, I suppose I have an intellectual masochist streak, so here goes:

Are you saying that had Bush, Santorum, and the others who favored the Iraq invasion been war heroes, then if they had made the same decision for the same reasons, it would have been the right one? Surely you can see the absurdity of that argument even from behind your impregnable fortress of illogic.

Alternatively, are you saying that had they been war heroes, they would not have made that decision? It is, of course, extremely difficult to prove a negative, especially a negative about a hypothetical, but history provides some pretty strong counterarguments. The war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the first American advisers to Viet Nam. The war hero Lyndon B. Johnson then escalated that war. The war hero George H. W. Bush sent the troops into Kuwait in the first Gulf War. And the war hero John McCain (and he was a war hero, whatever you think of his politics) favored the Iraq war from the start.

As I said, the "chickenhawk" argument is a particularly stupid form of ad hominem. It substitutes a (supposedly) clever catchword for real thought. It arouses strong emotions in a certain, shall we say, unsophisticated kind of mind. But not only does it not constitute real debate on the merits of the issue, it actively buries real debate under phony righteous indignation.

D. Singh| 1.5.12 @ 7:21AM

An excellent analysis.

Indy| 1.5.12 @ 8:01AM

Romney leaves the door open to a VAT as reported in the WSJ yesterday.

Santorum has other issues that are known to PA voters but have not yet made it to the national scene -

http://hillbuzz.org/why-rick-s.....f-it-95754

Each candidate has at least one major flaw, but the field is set...

Mimi| 1.5.12 @ 8:01AM

Senecased....Good points! You missed one in this Pro Romney go GET Santorum hit piece...THE FIRST VOTES OF 2012 told us the PEOPLE liked Santorum as President...finally the PEOPLE have spoke, by their votes!

W| 1.5.12 @ 9:56AM

If you reduce substantially or eliminate the income tax, as Cain proposed, then you will have a national sales tax, which is similar to the VAT. Steve Forbes proposed a flat income tax of about 18% to replace the progressive income tax, the national sales tax would be about 23%.
It is one or the other, an income tax or a national sales tax. But you still have to cut the spending to reduce the deficit.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 10:22AM

W:
Careful there with the similarity between sales tax and VAT. The VAT is akin to compound interest as it applies to every exchange cumulativly which is why it is so destructive of an economy. Sales tax applies only at the retail level not every supplier to sub-contractor exchange. They are similar but the difference is toxic.

Forbes is they guy to construct the replacement for the current what 40,000 page tax code. Obviously the current system is too conducive to corruption and special treatment. Any new construct needs to treat every persons dollar the same as every other persons dollar and not make distinctions based on volume or value judgements. Whether the change ever can happen is a question; the inertia and magnitude of the current system defies belief.

W| 1.5.12 @ 11:39AM

Al Adab,
I stand corrected. You are right, that was one question about Cain's plan whether it applied to every sale in the manufacturing and distribution chain.

The tax should be at the final sale to the consumer. If it is a VAT tax, though, the rate must be lower than a sales tax because, as you pointed out, it is applied at every step in the chain.

I believe it may be more fair than the current monstrosity of the income tax. Especially because it would eliminate the IRS and its intrusions in our privacy.

But the politicians prefer a progressive income tax because of the power it gives them to define deductions, income, credits, depreciation, etc, which gives them power and the ability to get campaign donations (legal bribes) for legislating these "goodies."

I liked Forbes' plan for a flat income tax.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 12:00PM

W:
Forbes is the guy we need to rely on to "create" sense out of the 40,000 pages of tax code. Too many special favors built in. Just think what a five percent VAT at say seven or eight levels of exchange adds up to. The price compounds. I wish my mutual funds did as well.

W| 1.5.12 @ 1:21PM

Al Adab

Didn't Bubba and Algore propose in 1992 a disguised VAT tax called the BTU tax energy used?

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 1:42PM

W:
There was some sort of that, but I don't recall enough to say whether it was VAT of some kind or not.

The Left keeps proposing energy taxes for some reason so it is one of those issues that will just keep coming back until they get one imposed. They just want us all eating sprouts, sitting in the dark and walking everywhere we go.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 2:53PM

Right on, Mimi. Happy New Year!

Dai Alanye| 1.5.12 @ 10:45AM

Kaminsky belabors the obvious and takes a static view of the campaign, but after Santorum's surprising ascent the campaign has become dynamic. Neither the record of past Iowa winners nor the opinions of Intrade punters tells us anything about how the process will work out. As anyone who has taken Statistics 101 should know, odds are important only in the gross -- they mean little in a one-up bet. Regardless if the penny comes up heads a hundred times in a row, the next flip by no means guarantees either heads or tails.

Iowa means simply this for Rick Santorum: he now gets center stage, and will rise or fall based on his ability to handle the issues and the attacks of bigots and fools. If he speaks as well as in his post-election talk, he should have more than a little success. It's now a two-man race between a man who lost one election, and a man who has failed in several. In politics, Mitt Romney is used to coming in second.

It's a fact that Romney is an improved candidate after the grueling Iowa campaign, but he still looked like a stiff when listening to the almost-raving John McCain. Despite improvements in how he presents himself, Romney continues to be largely dependent upon money and the endorsements of people less well regarded by conservatives. Nikki Haley is worth something, but Bush 41, Dan Quayle and Angry John McCain should lose him conservative support.

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 11:26AM

The fact remains: Nobody likes Romney except the GOP elites and the Democrat Party.

On the other hand, voters actually LIKE Santorum because he has core beliefs and he actually is conservative.

Why these opiners insist on going back to who won Iowa last time and who won SC last time, blah, blah, blah--as if what happened 4 years ago means anything today.
If that's the logic Kaminsky uses when investing he's probably lost a lot of money. You have to use current relevant info, Kaminsky.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 6:41AM

Santorum was named the dumbest Senator when he was in office. He like Newt Gingrich has called the Palistinians, an invented people. He has said that the West Bank is and always has been Israeli territory. I think that is wonderful. Now that the West Bank is Israeli territory, I am sure that the Israeli's will welcome the 2.5 million West Bank residents as full citizens of Israel with full, civil, religious, and human rights.

Mr Santorum, a so called prolife Catholic, wants to bomb Iran. and get us into WW3. Many thousands or maybe even millions will die in such an action, but he is prolife. Of course such an action is totally against Catholic Just War Doctrine. In order to be just, a war must be defensive in nature and must be limited to the most humane methods. It must only be as an absolute last resort. Mr Santorum wants to bomb,bomb, bomb Iran as the first resort not the least. The fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has nothing to do with Mr. Santorum's blood lust. The NIE report of 2007 says Iran has no nuclear program. Iran is a signer of the Non Proliferation Treaty and is under constant inspection. It has never threatened to use it's non existant nuclear weapons. It also has never attacked anyone in hundereds of years.

The only just and moral, way forward on Iran is to send an ambassador to Iran, end sanctions, which are a prelude to war, and have peaceful trade relations with Iran. The price of oil is shooting upwards as all this war propagada goes forward. Get ready for 10 dollra gas and a complete worldwide financial collapse if Little Ricky gets his way.

The present Pope has comdemed the war in Iraq as unjust and against any concept of Catholic doctrine as defined by the Cathechism. He is also against and has condemned any unprovoked agressive war against Iran. He has met with the leaders of both the Iranian civil and religious institutions. Agressive war is a horrible war crime. Many Germans were hung for pushing for and participating in it. Shame, Shame, Shame on the nasty, chickenhawk warmonger, Santoum.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:06AM

Catholic Just War Doctrine.

What a bunch of bullshit. I wonder if Vald Tsepesch practiced it. Or Richard III. "Just War" is a way to insure you LOOSE a war, which Jack the Nazi seems to think we should do all the time. Keep your sissyfied "just war" horse crap.

Musashi has a better track record anyway. So does Sun Tszu.

Since you decry those of us who support Israel as "Israel Firsters," can we infer from your post that you're a "Pope/Vatican Firster?"

chuck| 1.5.12 @ 9:26AM

Actually, considering the ideas he supports, he should be called a "Islamic jihadist Firster"!

Mike D.| 1.5.12 @ 10:32AM

I'd go with Vatican Firster & Finish Thirder! That sums it up pretty good.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:58AM

Ooh, I LIKE "Finish Thirder!"

Well done, Mike D!

Mike D.| 1.5.12 @ 11:22AM

That was posted yesterday, but lets make it stick!

Blackwatch| 1.5.12 @ 1:10PM

wait, Ron Paul is from Finland?

Mike D.| 1.5.12 @ 1:31PM

No, Mars.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:49PM

No, guys, you know the truth about where Ron Paul is from---he's a "bitter clinger from Uranus."

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 11:27AM

Is Jacksh*t in Wi a Muzzie or what?

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 2:58PM

Bigot Alert!! Bigot Alert!!

Con Artist Chef the hypocrite can speak anti-Catholic "drivel", but no one else is "permitted" to speak truthfully!!

Hypocrite Alert!! Hypocrite Alert!!

Where are the cries? Where is the outrage?
LOL.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 3:49PM

This from the "Christian" who denies the Holy Trinity? The Hell Consigning Heretic? The Cheap Talking Charlatan?

And again, I know you're old & senile, but as you can see from this quote from my post, "Since you decry those of us who support Israel as "Israel Firsters," can we infer from your post that you're a "Pope/Vatican Firster," I was making a point.

I know you're too f-ing stupid to get that, Margie. Why don't you have another Scotch & a few xanax & figure it out.

For the record, when you were in the throes of your foaming screeds last night, you said I spoke ill of your husband. I don't know who your husband is. I've never conversed with him on this site. So shut your lying fetid mouth.

However, a good exchange came to my mind concering your husband & you.

Lady Astor to Churchill:

"If you were my husband, I'd give you poison."

Churchill's Reply:

"If you were my wife, madam, I would drink it."

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 4:28PM

Chew on this, punk:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 4:37PM

YAWN.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 4:40PM

Double yawn.
You're a punk who is a liar AND a hypocrite, and according to the Bible, not I.

So, stuff it, little loser man.
You know nothing!

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 5:49PM

Actually, let me take apart your putrid post filled with lies and hypocrisy, bit by little bit.

"This from the "Christian" who denies the Holy Trinity? The Hell Consigning Heretic? The Cheap Talking Charlatan?"

Christian~ YES, I am. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for the SIN of the World, and that God actually raised Him from the dead, and that He lives to make intercession for us who believe in Him.
I believe EVERY Word of God that is written in the Bible, and I seek to OBEY His Words as best I can, by the Grace of God that was given to me.
And THAT is what makes me a Christian.

Now: You deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God~ that makes you a liar and anti-Christ, according to His Word, not mine.
THAT means you have absolutely no say in judging one who DOES.
Got it, little boy?

Next: Since the "Trinity" nor the teaching of same is not to be found ANYWHERE in the Bible, I do NOT have to accept it.
It is a Catholic teaching which they made up in order to place Mary as Mother of God, which she is not, she is DEAD.
Like you, I "point this out," according to the Bible, which states that since Adam, we are all sinners.

By the way~ you side with the Catholics when calling me a heretic, you know? And also: YOU don't believe in IT either, so WTF? as you'd say?
Hypocrite!

~You "pointed" it out about their Just War teaching, and I point it out in other areas.

So~ you're a flaming hypocrite!

Now that we've established what a hypocrite and liar you are, let me go on.

"Hell consigning", you say?
No, not me. The Word of God consigns you. Rev. 21:8.
You can't pin that on me!

"Charlatan?" Nope. I'm a Christian who happens to stand on Scripture, and am despised for it~ tough cookies, punk.

Charlatan DOES however indicate someone like you, who pretends to be an honest man here, while casting disgusting lies and insults where he pleases with NO basis in FACT.

"Old & senile", nope. Not yet, and Lord willing, not ever if God sees fit. But YOU had better hope that you repent before it's YOUR turn to get older, because at the rate you're going now, denying that Jesus is the Christ~ you're doing a fine job of consigning yourself to Hell as it is.

When you say:
""Since you decry those of us who support Israel as "Israel Firsters," can we infer from your post that you're a "Pope/Vatican Firster," I was making a point.
I know you're too f-ing stupid to get that, Margie. Why don't you have another Scotch & a few xanax & figure it out."

Actually, you're too blind and hypocritical to even see what a flaming hypocrite you are with that statement.
You're an immature little punk who thinks he is the ONLY one who is trying to "make a point".

So, hypocrite~ it's OK for you to "point a false teaching out", but not me?
Screw you, bud.

I know my Bible, kiddo, and I know Catholicism is LOADED with unscriptural teaching. You just don't happen to like it when I do as you do.

And as far as not conversing with my husband victor, here? You have posted in agreement with each other here, as you have with me for about 2 years now.

AND: Hate me, HATE my husband. We're ONE and believe the same.
Both of us are Christian and therefore utterly anti-Catholic.
Don't like it?
Tough cookies.

As to a "fetid" mouth and lying?
You are a shining or I should say STINKING example of what you say.

If you think you are actually getting away with your attacks on me, think again, punk.

The God of the Old Testament is the SAME God of the New Covenant, and HE says this:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

Now: where does this place YOU?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:30PM

This "places me" in a place to call you a fraud of a Christian who doesn't even believe in the Holy Trinity. And last I checked, that wasn't just some "papist" invention.

I don't condemn EVERY Catholic in the world as a "cultist" as you do. I make the point that if you're gonna call someone something as asinine as an "Israel Firster," then it would only make sense to turn that around someone who, in the same post that they denigrate Israel & those who support Her, makes mention of Catholicism. Its called "irony." Or pointing out hypocrisy.

See, unlike you, I don't give a crap by what name, or what path people choose to get to G*d. And yes, that includes the Muslims, damn few though they are, who don't think that jihad & killing of innocents, child marriage, or any of that other dreck is the path to G*d.

YOU pretend to be the only authority on the world of G*d's law. This makes you a phony. You are no Christian that I've ever heard of. You refuse to name your denomination. That's either because you've started your very own Branch Davidian outfit or you're just too ashamed of your idiocy to implicate whatever denomination you are.

You & your words mean nothing to me. You don't know my heart, my soul, OR me. All your spouting of New Testament verses mean nothing to me. You are no theologian, nor clergyman/official lay person in your church. You are not G*d.

As far as your husband is concerned, how can I hate a person with whom I've never conversed with or who's posts I've never read? This is nothing more than another installment of nonsensical prattling from you.

Then you finished by writing:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

Now: where does this place YOU?"

Right where I need to be. I'm good with G*d. Worry about your own presumptuous soul. And I view, & will tell, any idiot that says this nation was founded by "deists," that the New Testament /Gospel of Christ is historically & culturally ESSENTIAL part of what this country represents & what it was founded on.

All that being said, again, Jesus is NOT my Messiah. Nor is he any that for any other Jew. So I guess, unlike 98% of Christians these days, you still think that ALL Jews go to Hell, regardless of the good lives they might've lead. You probably even think that Ghandi is bunking with Hitler, Einstein & my 2 grandfathers & father in hell as we speak.

In other words, you're an idiot. And have no clue as to what G*d cherishes, nor whom He will save, despite what you claim your cherry picked Bible quotes say.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 1:00AM

"This "places me" in a place to call you a fraud of a Christian who doesn't even believe in the Holy Trinity. And last I checked, that wasn't just some "papist" invention."

You checked? No, you didn't. Because if you did, you'd know it is true, LIAR.

So, on your very first sentence you prove once again that you're a liar.

Next. Lie number two:

"I don't condemn EVERY Catholic in the world as a "cultist" as you do"

I don't do that, nor have I EVER, condemned every Catholic. PUNK.

But God condemns the false teachers who teach the false teachings. If you actually WERE a Christian, you'd know that, but your an anti-Christ and a liar, so you don't. In fact, you know NOTHING of which you speak.

NEXT: "See, unlike you, I don't give a crap by what name, or what path people choose to get to G*d. "

Well, God cares, and so do I. And real Christians who aren't complete cowards take a stand on His Word, and speak the truth~ HIS TRUTH FOUND IN THE BIBLE~ to lies and false teachings.
YOU don't like it~ but that's just too awful bad, now isn't it?

Because I have no intention of quitting, got it, lowlife punk?

Next: "YOU pretend to be the only authority on the world of G*d's law."

Yet another lie. I do not pretend to be the only one.. but I have the authority to speak and preach His Word, as it is written:

"But as many as received Him, to them
He gave authority to become children of
God, to the ones believing into His name,
13 who were generated not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but were generated of God.. 1:12 & 13.

Got it?

Next LIE:
"..you refuse to name your denomination."

I don't REFUSE to name one, because I belong to no denomination.
I belong to the Body of Christ, and the Bible is my doctrine.

Got it? Don't like it? Tough.

Next: "You & your words mean nothing to me."
If this is the case, then do NOT address me anymore with lies and false accusations as to my character and I will never address you again.

GOT IT, PUNK??
Remember, you began this phony war~ with including me in with the lowest of the low here~ the Jew hating Clint and Jack, of which I despise and am nothing like.

If you refuse to quit doing so, I will keep on your putrid rear end and say whatever I please to you.

Next: You have read his posts here, that is, my husband's posts and you know it. His name is victor and you used to post as Navy Brat.

Next: You say that you're good with God, yet you reject His Son, so you are NOT good with God.
And I PRESUME nothing~ you said it yourself.

Man, you are one phony of a human being! Every sentence of yours is filled with lies.

And, again~ it isn't up to me who goes to Heaven or Hell, but it IS up to me to do what God commands Christians to do, and that is to speak the TRUTH to lies~ and I've just done that with you here, again.

Salvation IS based~ACCORDING to the Word of GOD, upon whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ, and His Gospel.
So~ you can fight all you want, and try and paint me as something I am not~ exactly like the unbelieving lying phony Pope worshipping Trolls here~ but it isn't really ME you have an issue with.

It's the God of the Bible, and He says this:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

So, like I said, either you quit your lying, but if not, I will continue to defend both myself and the Gospel of Jesus Christ continually.

And the IDIOT here is the one who is a liar, and who rejects the Son of God.

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:17AM

You're a false prophet & a charlatan.

"I don't do that, nor have I EVER, condemned every Catholic. PUNK."

Surely this is supposed to be satire. Because if it isn't, you're more full of shit than a portapotty.

"Well, God cares, and so do I."

I know G*d cares. He's all that matters. You matter about as much as a dog turd on my shoe.

"Next: You have read his posts here, that is, my husband's posts and you know it. His name is victor and you used to post as Navy Brat."

Didn't know he was your husband, imbecile.

"You say that you're good with God, yet you reject His Son, so you are NOT good with God."

Again, we Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. Yet there are PLENTY of us who're "good with G*d." Only idiots like you would think that someone like my father, who served his country for 20 years & was 1000 times the person YOU'LL ever be, is stoking furnaces in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. I don't know what "god" you pray to, but the G*d I pray to, as well as almost every other Christian except YOU, does no such thing.

"So, like I said, either you quit your lying, but if not, I will continue to defend both myself and the Gospel of Jesus Christ continually.

And the IDIOT here is the one who is a liar, and who rejects the Son of God."

I'll punk you out like the haint you are every time you're on this site spewing your "anti Papist" bullshit.

NOW HEAR THIS:

Fellow Am Spec Jewish posters, if you reject Christ & don't convert RIGHT HERE & NOW, you're an idiot, according to Margie's own little Branch Davidian sect.

You're a waste of DNA, Margie. Go down some more Scotch & a couple more xanaz.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:34PM

Con Artist Chef continues to make things up (Lie), as he is of his father the Devil, and there is no truth in him. Jn. 8:44.

Papist Dan| 1.5.12 @ 10:43PM

IdiotBigot Margie

Do you believe Jews will burn in hell because they do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah?
I bet you are a coward to answer .

Didn't your husband admit you two are Anabaptists? They practiced sharing of wives, and sex with minors, and that was the reason for their persecution. Or maybe you believe sharing of wives and sex with minors is ok.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:51PM

We're all gonna burn, but she sure sucks up to Occam a whole lot.

And Margie's being involved in some polygamist whackjob cult would not be surprising in the least. It would explain the rage that sputters from her keyboard every time she's confronted with her own words. She's pissed because her hubby has tired of her & is now drilling his new 23 year old wife.

Maybe this can help you out, Margie:

www.headostate.com

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 1:03AM

Filthy lying pervert.

You take yourself to Hell, no one puts you there, you have done it all by yourself.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:20AM

Gee, Marge. You really got me with that one...

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:37PM

You have made your bed, and God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ tells you where you belong:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:35PM

No, the anabaptists did no such thing, they were faithful Bible believing Christians who rejected the lying teachings of the Catholic Religion, and the Papacy put them to death for it.

Your slandering lies are what the Papists thought up.
You are of the same Father they were, the Devil. Jn. 8:44.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:38PM

The scumbag Papist doesn't read the Bible. No surprise there.

Neither do most of your pals here.

Nick| 1.5.12 @ 7:59PM

Yoo-Hoo Marige?

Where's those answers to my three very simple questions?
It's been 2 weeks, already.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 8:37PM

Since the Papists, (those who Idolize Man and not the Word of God as written in Scripture) are doing it again~ lying and name calling to the Christian who stands on the Word of God, see fit to do so, each and every time they do so here with false accusations of Bigotry, I shall post the actual history of their Apostate and ungodly Religion here:

OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES
Where God builds a temple, says the old proverb, there the devil builds another in opposition. This has been apparent ever since the beginning of the world. For at the same time that Abel became a martyr of God, and, therefore, a good leader of the children of God, Cain made himself a murderer, and became a leader of the children of Satan, who belong to the ungodly and false church, as members of one body. Gen. 4:8.
He was followed by Lamech, one of Cain's descendants, who slew a young man, and afterwards spoke of it to his wives Addah and Zillah, in a boasting and presumptuous manner. Gen. 4:23.

Page 45
The people of the first world universally, with the exception of eight, followed in the footsteps of Lamech in wickedness; they exercised tyranny, violence, and oppression, and would not be governed by the Spirit of God. Gen. 6:3, 4.
The Sodomites followed in the same course, vexing with their unbecoming walk the righteous soul of Lot from day to day. Gen. 19; II Pet. 2:8.
These were succeeded by the Egyptians, who imposed grievous and insupportable burdens upon the people of God, and finally sought their lives, yea pursued them even into the sea. Compare Ex. 1:11 with Ex. 14:9,10, 23.
After these were the seven nations, or inhabitants, of the land of Palestine, who were greater and mightier than the children of Israel, but were banished by God on account of their wickedness; namely the Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc. Deut. 7:1, 2.
After these manifested themselves the Amorites, Moabites, Midianites, Philistines, and many others, who disturbed, oppressed, and harassed in manifold ways the people of God, which was dwelling in quiet. See throughout in the book of the judges, the books of Samuel, the Kings, and Chronicles.
The Chaldeans, Assyrians, and the inhabitants of the land of Babylon, followed those already mentioned; they carried the church of God away into foreign lands, burned the house of God, and laid waste the city of Jerusalem, which God had chosen above all cities of the whole earth. II Kings 1-17; Jer. 52:1-20; Lam. 1:1-5.
The mighty cities, Tyre and Sidon, in Phoenicia, and afterwards, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, which defied the world itself with their greatness, and cast the threatenings of God to the wind, lifted up their heads after the last mentioned, but to their own destruction. Compare Isa. 23:4, 5; Ezek. 27 and 28 throughout, with Matt. 11:20-23.
All these who have been mentioned, from Cain on, succeeded one another in regular order, and may be considered as members of the church of Satan; since they have neither in generation, nor in faith, nor in worship, nor in manner of life, agreed with the church of God, but opposed it in every respect.
After the coming of Christ, many who had adopted the Christian religion and worship, apostatized, denying the-faith, and thus becoming fellow members in the last mentioned, ungodly, and wicked congregation; as, for instance: Simon Magus, who by confession of faith, and baptism had joined himself to the visible church of God, but fell from it, desiring to purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost with money, which, according to the apostle Peter, tended to his destruction, although he afterwards, as it appears, was again converted. Acts 8:13, 18-22.
Hymenaeus and Alexander, who concerning faith made shipwreck, and were full of blasphemies, wherefore they were put away from the church by Paul, and delivered unto Satan. I Tim. 1:19, 20.
Phygellus and Hermogenes, who with the greater number of those in Asia, were turned away from Paul, and, consequently, also from the doctrine of the Gospel which they had received. II Tim. 1:15.'
Hymenaeus (the second) and Philetus, who, having erred concerning the truth, pretended that the resurrection of the dead was past already; whereby they overthrew the faith of some. II Tim. 2:17, 18.
Demas, who forsook Paul, having loved the world. II Tim. 4:10.
Alexander, the coppersmith, who did the apostle much evil, on account of which the church of Christ is admonished to beware of him. II Tim. 4:14,15.
Many others, who, though they bore the name of members of the Christian church, did not stand by but forsook the oft mentioned servant of God, when he was to answer before the Emperor Nero in regard to the Evangelical doctrine; for which reason their names did no longer belong among the pious. See last mentioned chapter verse 16.
After these followed many who in the days of John went out from the Church of Jesus Christ, and did the works of antichrist; wherefore they were called antichrists, being forerunners of the great antichrist who was to follow afterwards. See I John 2:18, 19. Besides these who arose already in the time of the apostles, and went out from the holy congregation of God, many others, who can not all be mentioned, followed in all ages and will follow to the last days.
Of this the apostles prophesied when their departure was near at hand, and warned the believers of their coming.
When Paul knew and was fully assured through the revelation of the Holy Ghost that all those among whom he had traveled preaching the Gospel would see his face no more, he thus addressed, on the island of Miletus, the elders of the church of Ephesus, who had come to him: I know, beloved brethren, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember that by the space
of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:29-31.
Afterwards when he was in the city of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana, he wrote in a certain letter to his beloved friend Timothy, concerning the apostasy which should be through some in the latter times, thus, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats." I Tim. 4:1-3.

Page 46
Who these apostates were that, in many instances, have forbidden marriage and meats it is unnecessary to point out, since the truth of the matter is clear and manifest to almost everyone.
But at the close of his life, when he was imprisoned at Rome the second time, and had already received his sentence of death, namely, to be executed with the sword, for the name of the Lord, he once more renewed the foregoing to his friend and spiritual son Timothy, in order that he might never forget it, but also put the church, where he was a teacher, in remembrance of it with these words, "This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, . . . having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." II Tim. 3:1-5.
Continually, he adds this declaration for further instruction, "The time will come when they" (namely, certain members of the Christian church)"will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Tim. 4:3, 4).
In like manner, Peter also, as his departure drew nigh, expressly prophesied to the chosen strangers scattered abroad: That, as there were, in times past, false prophets among the people (Israel), there should also be false teachers among (or out of) them, who should privily bring in pernicious heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. II Pet. 2:1.
It would require too much time to recount what also John says on this subject, not only in his epistles, but especially in his revelation; since he gives a description of the condition of both the church of Christ and of antichrist, from his time to the end of the world.
OF THE EVIL SUCCESSION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, CONSISTING ONLY IN THE SUCCESSION OF THE PERSONS, AND NOT OF THE DOCTRINE

Here is to be considered the great error of the Romanists, when they without regarding the true succession of the doctrine build on, and parade the succession of the persons, who either from the beginning of the world, or from the time of the apostles have existed throughout, as they pretend up to the present time; surely a very insignificant matter!*
For, if they reckon from the beginning of the world, we have shown, that Cain, who was a murderer, has had his successors as well as Abel, who was slain for the sake of his faith** and godliness.

*"Trust ye not in lying words," saith the Lord,"saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these" (Jer. 7:4).
*"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11:4). And also, if they reckon from the time of the apostles, we have demonstrated that at that time already there were many apostates, yea, adversaries of the Christian religion and the true worship of God; and that more have followed, according to the prophecies and predictions which the holy apostles uttered and left to posterity.
Hence it follows, that neither the antiquity, nor the long or great succession of persons, can assure the truth of any religion or church, since the evil is as ancient as the good, and the erring spirits and evildoers have had, and still have, as great a succession as the true believers and good; unless the antiquity, and the succession of persons be accompanied with the divine truth and piety possessed by the upright ancients in the beginning.
OBJECTION OF THE PAPISTS, BY MEANS OF THREE PASSAGES

But, in order to maintain the aforementioned succession, the Papists are accustomed to say, that they do not reckon the same from the antiquity of some erring spirits who were before, in, or after the time of the apostles; but from the church of Christ itself, and from Peter, whom they styled the prince of the apostles, upon whom Christ Himself, as they asserted, wished to build His church. Bell. lib. I. de pont Rom. cap. 10. Quansuy ex.
To this they add as a second argument, that to him and no other, were given, by Christ, the keys of heaven, to open or to close the same according to his pleasure.
And, thirdly, that the Lord thrice commanded him-more than the other apostles-to feed His flock, that is, His church.
Moreover, that he occupied the Roman throne, and that the popes succeeded him therein.
To prove this supremacy of Peter, and, consequently, the succession of the popes in his place, they have, for a long time already, misused three passages of holy Scripture, namely Matt. 16:18, 19; and John 21:15-17; to which we will reply in the following.
REPLY TO THE FIRST PASSAGE

Matt. 16:18, the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build my church."
The error of the Romanists consists in this, that they misinterpret the word petra, as though thereby was meant the apostle Peter; but this is a great and palpable error. For the Lord there plainly distinguishes between the name Petros (Peter) and the word petra (rock); saying immediately before, "Thou art Peter," but afterwards, "and upon this rock;" upon which follows, "I will build my church;" so that the Lord does not promise there, to build His church upon Peter, but upon the rock; which he plainly mentions.
Now it will depend upon the true meaninb who and what is to be understood by this rock. Some maintain the first mentioned meaning, which

Page 47
we have refuted just now, namely, that Peter himself is meant thereby; for which purpose they misapply the passage John 1:42, where this apostle is called Cephas,* which, in their opinion, signifies a foundation stone; but this is also an error.
It is true that, according to the explanation of orientalists, those versed in oriental languages, by this word there is to be understood a stone; but what kind of a stone? Not a foundation stone, but a piece, corner, or chip of a stone, upon which no building could ever be founded. The word Cephas, they say, is derived from the Hebrew word Keph, which with them means a corner or edge of a stone; while, on the other hand, the rocks or foundation stones are designated by the.name Sela or Zur ** according to Deut. 32:13. Thus Peter is indeed called a stone in holy Scripture, yet not a foundation stone, but only such a one as is generally built upon a foundation. Christ is properly the foundation stone, as Peter himself declares, when he calls Christ the living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious (I Pet. 2:4); whereupon he adduces the words of the Prophet Isaiah saying, "Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him" (that is built, upon him through faith)"shall not be confounded." I Pet. 2:6 from Isa. 28:16. Therefore he admonishes the believers, to build themselves, as living stones, to a spiritual house, upon the foundation which is laid-Christ. Verse 5.
Paul confirms this, when he says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). In another place he calls Him the foundation of the apostles and prophets, etc. (namely, upon whom the apostles and pr phets themselves were built up, and upon whom they, through their doctrine, built up others also.); for he adds, "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:20-22) .
It is not inconsistent with this, that the twelve apostles, of whom Peter was one, are called twelve foundation stones, *** upon which, as John says, the city of God, that descended from heaven, was built. Rev. 21:14. For, even if it were admitted that by

* And he (Andrew) brought him (Simon Peter) to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou stu be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. John 1:42.
* He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields: and he made him to suck honey out of the"Sela" rock, and oil out of the"Zur" flinty rock. Deut. 32:13.
** The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev.21:14). In the first place it is questionable (even if it be admitted that by this description of the city of God we are to understand the church of God) whether thereby is meant the church of God as it is here on earth, or the glorified church of God, as it will be afterwards in heaven t for only the former, and not he latter, is to be considered here. In the second place, it is certain that the name"foundation stone" is ascribed here not to Peter alone, but to all the twelve apostles; hence he is here called a foundation not any more than any of the others. he words, city of God, in this place, there is to be understood the church of God here on earth, this would only prove, that Peter, as well as the other apostles, was one of the twelve foundation stones of the church of Christ; which by no means confirms the proposed objection, that Peter alone is the foundation stone, or foundaition, of the church.
Again, the word "foundation stones" here does not signify the foundation itself, since, properly speaking, in nature, the foundation, as the ground or bottom of a building, is something different from the stones built upon it, which are called foundation stones; for, upon the ground or bottom the foundation stones are laid, and upon the foundation stones the building; so that the ground of foundation must support both, the foundation stones and the building. Thus, Christ is the ground, bottom, or foundation of His church; the apostles, through their doctrine, are the foundation stones; and. the church is the building erected upon these foundation stones and the foundation. It stands fast, therefore, that they err, who make Peter the only foundation of the church of Christ, and that, consequently the building which they erect thereon, is erroneous and false *
REPLY TO THE SECOND PASSAGE

The second passage is taken from Matt. 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
But this does not in the least tend to prove that church discipline or the power of expelling from, and readmitting unto the church, was given, among the apostles, to Peter alone, and to no other of the twelve; for in verse 13 it is written, "When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" Whereupon it is related, that Peter (in the name of all) answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Then follows, verse 19, "I will give unto thee the keys," etc., which promise, though addressed specially to Peter, extended to all the apostles in general, since the Lord did not ask Peter alone; but the whole of them collectively; upon which, when he (Peter) had answered in the name of all, followed the above mentioned promise.
This is explained still further by the holy evangelist John, who says, chap. 20:19, 22, 23, that Christ, after His resurrection, standing in the midst of His disciples, breathed on them all, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," adding, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained;" which words are of equal impor-

* James, Cephas" (or Peter),"and John, who seemed to be pillars," etc. Gal. 2:9. Here James is mentioned before Cephas (or Peter). Again, John and James are called pillars as well as Cephas (or Peter), in order to show that the worthiness or the ministry of one was not more than that of the other, and that they, without distinction, were all equal therein.
Page 48
tance with those just quoted from Matthew, concerning the giving of the keys.
Moreover, that the church also has received this power, is expressed in words not obscure at all in Matt. 18:17, 18: If he (the sinner) neglect to hear ,the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye (understand, according to the sentence of the church, which is here spoken of) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Who doubts that these are the express words which were previously addressed to Peter, but, of course, are intended for all the apostles, and here for the whole church?
We see that the Corinthian church, at the time of Paul, possessed the right of expelling and readmitting, called binding and loosing; for, touching the expulsion of the sinner, it was said to them, "Purge out therefore the old leaven" (namely, the obstinate sinner), etc. I Cor. 5:7. Again, "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Verse 13.
Concerning the readmittance of the one who manifested penitence, they are commanded, "Sufficient to such a man (namely, who repents of his sins) is this punishment (that is, the expulsion from the church) which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (II Cor. 2:6,7).
Besides, that this power of binding and loosing was not given to Peter alone, but to all the apostles, and also to the church, it is entirely different in its nature from that of which the pope of Rome as the imaginary successor of Peter boasts. For the power of which Christ spoke, must be limited by the rule of His Word, Matt. 7:24, 26; Gal. 1:6-8; while on the contrary the power of which the pope boasts is unlimited, has no rule, and extends as far as his pleasure. Bald. in cap. Eccles. Also, dirt. 40. cap. S. Papae, etc.
It follows then, that to the pope is attributed wrongfully a power which was not given to Peter himself; moreover, that the power which was given him, was common to all the apostles, and also to the church.
REPLY TO THE THIRD PASSAGE

The third passage (or argument) is taken from John 21:15-17, where-the Lord asked Peter three times whether he loved Him, and Peter answered each time, "Yea, Lord, I love thee;" to which the Lord replied, three times, "Feed my lambs;""Watch my sheep," etc.
Some among the papists, in order to maintain the supremacy of Peter and, consequently, that of the popes of Rome, have so strained these words, that a certain celebrated author among them did not hesitate to write, that Peter is here appointed a ruler, watchman, and pastor, not only over the church, but over the apostles themselves. Bell. lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. 14 & 15. 16. Second S. belt. etc.
But herein they do violence to the text, since various arguments from the holy Scriptures overthrow this view. For, in the first place, it is certain, that at that time Peter had greatly and grievously gone astray, more than any of the other apostles; since he, contrary to warning and his own solemn promise, had so faithlessly denied, yea, entirely forsaken, the Lord; hence, there is no probability that the Lord exalted him above all the others, and appointed him ruler over them; which would be altogether incompatible with the justice of Christ, and the nature of the case.
In the second place it would not accord with what the Lord had taught His apostles in general, on a previous occasion, when strife had arisen among them, as to which of them, after His departure, should be the greatest; saying, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the youngest; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve" (Luke 22:25, 26) . Again, "Neither be ye called masters
for one is your Master, even Christ" (Matt. 23:8, 10).
In the third place, if we examine the proposed argument, we shall find, that neither the threefold question of the Lord: Lovest thou me? nor His threefold injunction, "Feed, or watch, my lambs, and sheep," was directed to Peter any more than to the other apostles.
For, as regards the question, Lovest thou me? what does it signify more than that Peter should examine himself, whether he did love Christ? Very well. What, then, had Peter more than any of the other apostles? or than Paul afterwards had? who said, "For I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38, 3,9). Again, "The love of Christ constraineth us;" etc. II Cor. 5:14. Yea, every Christian in particular, and all in general, are bound to this love, which is so necessary, that it is written, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha" (I Cor. 16:22) .
Concerning the injunction, Watch, or feed, my lambs and sheep, this is also enjoined upon all true teachers."Take heed therefore," says Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus,"unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28) .
Peter, moreover, has, in this respect, not placed himself above, but beside his fellow ministers, when he, exhorting them says, "The elders which

Page 49
are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you," etc. (I Pet. 5:1, 2).
This is further confirmed by the fact, that the Lord did not command Peter only, but all the apostles in general, to go into all the world, to preach and baptize the believers. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16.
Again, He said to them all, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
It follows therefore, that in the matter of watching over, .and feeding, the sheep of Christ, that is, in preaching the holy Gospel, and taking care of the church of Christ, Peter possessed no more authority, power, and distinction than the other apostles and apostolic teachers.
It now remains to give a solution, why the Lord thrice asked Peter alone, and none of the others, whether he loved Him, and thrice commanded him to feed His sheep.
To this we reply: since Peter only a short time before had thrice forsaken the Lord, it was not more than right, that he should also confess thrice that he loved Him whom he had forsaken; and that, therefore, this question should be put to him three times.
Besides, since Peter, by his denial had entirely abandoned, or, at least, had become totally unworthy of his office of teaching and feeding the church of Christ, none of the other apostles would, under any consideration, have recognized or received him therein; hence it was necessary, that the Lord Himself should earnestly, yea thrice, charge him with it, so that no one might come to doubt the worthiness of his person (since he was now converted), or the validity of his office.
Thence follows again the absurdity of those who make the matter in question say more than the Lord Himself has done: namely, that Peter hereby was not reinstated into his office, which he had abandoned; but that he was appointed head of the whole church, yea, even over all the other apostles; as can be seen in lib. 1. de pont. Rom. cap. 11. Bellorm.
THE GROUNDLESSNESS [OF THE ALLEGATIONS] OF THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DEDUCE THE ROMAN SUCCESSION FROM PETER THE HOLY APOSTLE, AND WHEREIN THIS CONSISTS

Besides that the three proposed passages are of no use to the papists in proving the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles and the whole Christian church, there follow various reasons and circumstances which show clearly, that the succession of the popes, which they would deduce from Peter, cannot stand, but is unfounded and untrue.
For, to come to the point, it cannot be shown, that Peter was ever at Rome, (where the seat of the pope is placed), except at the close of his life, and then he was not received as pope, but was put to death as a martyr, with Paul, his fellow apostle, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, as we have circumstantially shown in the History of the Holy Martyrs,of the year 69 A. D. Also, Egesi¢p. Hist. van de verstoring Jerusalem, 3. Bock, 2 cap. Also, W. Band. Apopth. Christian, lib. I. ex Hieron. de vitis illustribus. Johan. Strac. in festo Johan. Evang, etc.
Eusebius quotes from Dionysius, a teacher of the church at Corinth, concerning the coming of Paul and Peter to Rome, as also concerning their preaching, which was the cause of their death, these words: They (namely Paul and Peter) were both together in our congregation at Corinth, teaching (from) there (on) throughout all Italy; they taught also in this city (namely, Rome, of which he had first spoken); where they both were crowned martyrs at the same time. Euseb. Pamph. Chron. Eccl. Edition of 1,588 lib. 2. cap. z,5.
He speaks of Peter's coming to, and preaching at, Rome, even as if having taken place at the close of his life; and although he puts Paul's coming and preaching in the same time, Paul's coming to this city, nevertheless, happened much earlier than the coming of Peter, which took place shortly before their death; in which time both together preached the holy Gospel in that city.
That Paul was there much earlier and longer, appears from all the circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was brought to Rome, and, having arrived there,"dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." Here the account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything further of Peter. See Acts 28:30, 31.
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIP TURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EX PLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE

In this demonstration we shall forego the method employed by Sebastian Frank, Gysius, and others, who have written syllogistically upon this subject, and shall confine ourselves solely to the express testimony of (or, at least, plain inferences from) Holy Scripture, upon which we propose to found our arguments.
Reason. First Argument.-When Paul drew near the city of Rome, where he was to be arraigned before Cesar, the brethren* came out of the city

* By which of the other apostles these brethren at Rome were converted, is not mentioned in the text; but it may have been that they were converted on the day of Pentecost at erusalem, for at that time strangers of Rome were there. Acts 2:10.
Page 50
to meet him, as far as Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns, whom, when Paul saw, he took courage. Acts 28:15: But among these Peter is not once mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been the case, had he been with them and occupied the episcopal throne at that place, as is pretended.
Second Argument.-When it came to pass, that Paul was to give an account before the emperor for the first time, he was forsaken by all, and no man stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy. II Tim. 4:16, Now, if Peter had been at Rome; he certainly would not have forsaken Paul, whom he was wont to call his beloved brother, II Pet. 3:15; but would have stood by him with counsel and actual assistance, according to his ability. This, however, did not happen; which clearly shows that he was not there at that time; unless some one might conclude, that he, who before had forsaken his Lord and Saviour (which was a matter of much consequence), now probably also forsook Paul, who was inferior.
To this may serve as reply: That Peter, at the time he forsook Christ, was not filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured upon the apostles until after Christ's ascension, Acts 2:1-3; hence he could easily come to this fall; but now, being filled with the Holy Ghost,* it was quite otherwise, so much so, that he and his fellow apostles feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare Acts 4:19-21 with 5:40-42 and 12:3, 4. Also I Pet. 3:14 and 4:16.
Moreover, in Paul's complaint to Timothy not a word is mentioned as to Peter having forsaken him; which, had it happened, would certainly, as a notable matter, not have been passed over in silence; more especially, as he mentions some of those who forsook him, by name, as, Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, etc.
Third Argument.-When Paul was confined in prison at Rome, and bound in chains, he commended Onesiphorus, because he had visited him, and was not ashamed of his chain; without mentioning anything about others, saying, "The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" (II Tim. 1:16) .
But why does he not commend Peter as having visited him in his bonds? or, if Peter was there and did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain, why does he not complain, that so great a man, who ought to have been a leader unto others, was so negligent therein?
Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that time, and visited, or not visited, him in prison, Paul would not have passed it over in utter silence, without commending or complaining of it.
Fourth Argument-When many had departed from Paul, while he was in prison, he made mention of one who had remained by, or with him, namely, in the city of Rome. He calls him Luke,

* Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. John 16:13. and says: Only Luke is with (or by) me. II Tim. 4:11. It follows, therefore, that at the time when Paul wrote this, Peter was not at Rome, or it could not have been that only Luke was with him. ,
Fifth Argument.-A little further on from the above mentioned words, Paul requests of Timothy, that when he, came to him, he should bring Mark with him, since the same would be very profitable to him for his ministry, saying: Take Mark, and bring him with thee (when thou comest); for he is profitable to me for the ministry. II Tim. 4:11.
Now, if Peter was in Rome at that time, why was Paul under the necessity of sending for Mark for the ministry? or, if he was not there, why did he not send for Peter? Certainly, if he had sent for him, he would, unless prevented by some important cause, not have refused to come: and then it could be concluded, that Peter zws there a considerable time, since, as we find, they both died considerable time afterwards.
But it does not appear that Paul sent for him; hence, it cannot be concluded, that he came in answer to his summons; and even if he had come at that time, his stay there could not have lasted several years, much less twenty-five years, as the papists say, since death overtook him as well as Paul, as has been shown in its proper place. The preparation, however, of this whole argument is unnecessary and superfluous.
Sixth Argument.-Paul wrote various epistles from his prison at Rome to the believers; as to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to Timothy, Philemon, etc., in which he puts various salutations from believers of the church at Rome, as also, in the beginning of the same makes mention sometimes of his fellow laborers; but he never mentions Peter. We will show here the manner in which this is done.
In the beginning of the epistle to the Philippians he writes these words: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ. Now, why does he not add here: and Simon Peter?
Nearly in the same manner he commences the epistle to the Colossians, saying;"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus, our brother." Why does he not add: and Peter, the chief apostle?
In concluding these epistles he adds the salutations of the saints who were with him. To the Philippians he writes, "All the saints salute you
. . chiefly they that are of Caesar's household" (Phil. 4:21, 22) . To the Colossians he addresses these words, "Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you" (Col: 4:12).. Also: Luke, the physician, greets you. Verse 14.
Peter is not mentioned here at all, which, certainly, had he been there, would have been highly necessary.
This same manner he followed in all the other epistles which he wrote from Rome. To Timothy he says, "Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia". (II Tim. 4:21).

Page 51 50029 words so far
To Philemon, "There salute thee Epaphras . . . Marcus, Aristarchus" (Phil. 23, 24) .
There might be much said upon this subject, but it would all amount to this: that it would be a strange thing, if Peter was at Rome, when Paul wrote his epistles from the Roman prison, that the latter did never mention in these epistles a salutation from Peter (which, as has been shown, he did not); seeing he mentions salutations from different leaders and members of the Roman church, whom he calls by name: hence it is quite reasonable to conclude, that Peter was not there during that time.
Besides the six arguments mentioned, proving that during the time Paul was imprisoned under Nero, Peter was not at Rome, as far as the testimony of Holy Scriptures go in regard to this, there follow various circumstances showing (by like virtue of Holy Scripture), that also during the time Paul was out of prison, Peter was not to be found in this city.
First Circumstance.-Here is to be considered, why Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman church, as well for the confirmation of the Christian faith, as for stirring up in the moral virtues (which epistle is still in existence), if Peter was there at that time, and had the charge of said church? or, if it was necessary for important reasons, that he should write to them, why he did not send this epistle to Peter as their leader, like he did to Timothy, the teacher of the Ephesian church; and to Titus, the teacher of the church in the Island of Crete?
Or, at least, if we look at the contents of .this epistle, we may well consider, why he did not address a salutation to him, or once mention him by name? seeing he filled nearly a whole chapter with the names of those whom he salutes at Rome: as, Aquila with his wife Priscilla, Epenetus and Mary, together with Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbanus, Apelles, Herodion, those of the household of Narcissus (the women), Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus, etc., Rom. 16 throughout; without mentioning in any way whatever the person or name of Peter; from which there may be concluded again with good reason, that which has been concluded before from the account of the salutations which Paul wrote while in prison at Rome, namely, that Peter was not in this city at that time
Second Circumstance. -When it afterwards happened that Paul, having traveled through Arabia and the country of Damascus, returned after three years, with a particular desire to see Peter; he did not seek him at Rome, but at Jerusalem; where, when he had found him, he abode with him fifteen days: and then departed again into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Gal. 1:17-21.
Third Circumstance. - When fourteen more years had elapsed, namely, those spent by Paul in his Syrian and Cilician journey, where was Peter to be found? Certainly not at Rome, but at Anti och; for there Paul came to him, and rebuked him, because he had eaten with the Gentiles in the presence of the Jews. Compare Gal. 2:1 with verses 11,12.
Fourth Circumstance.-When some came down from Judea, and troubled the brethren, saying that, unless they were circumcised after the man ner of Moses, they could not be saved; and Paul, Barnabas, and other pious men were sent to the apostles .and elders, to consult about the matter; Peter as well as the others to whom they were sent, was found at Jerusalem. Acts 15:1-7.
Fifth Circumstance.-Gal. 2:7, we read, that the uncircumcision (that is, the Gentiles) was committed to Paul, but the circumcision (that is, the Jews or the Jewish nation) to Peter; also, verse 9, that Peter (there called Cephas) together with James and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand and agreed, that these should go unto the heathen, but they unto the circumcision (the Jews); namely, to preach the Gospel unto them.
It is, therefore, a settled fact, that Peter was properly a teacher of the Jews (after this agreement was made), and not of the Gentiles. But if he had taught among the Romans, who were Gentiles by nature, he would have gone altogether beyond his engagement and promise; which certainly is not to be supposed of so great and _ eminent a man as Peter was at that time.
Sixth Circumstance.-From the two epistles of Peter, especially from the words, I Pet. 1:1, it evidently appears, that he preached to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (namely those who were scattered there from the twelve tribes of Israel) according to the statement of James, chap. 1:1; for which preaching, since these countries are very far, some even a hundred and more leagues apart, several years were required, in order to travel through them; during which time Peter apparently could not be there and at Rome at once; this is incontrovertible.
Seventh Circumstance.-At the end of the first epistle of Peter, namely I Pet. 5:13, are these words, "The church that is at Babylon, elected . . . saluteth you."
How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, unless he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies; of which we do not read anything, nor have we any reason to believe it.
Eighth Circumstance.-Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome, make no distinction between the words apostle, or messenger, and bishop, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop.
The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another, yea, through the whole world, and preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it; without being bound to any particular

Page 52
place or church, as appears from Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.
On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd his flock, a particular church, unto which the Gospel had been already preached, and which had accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20:28 with I Tim. 3:1-5; Tit. 1:5-7.
Now, it is a fact, that properly not the latter, but the former office was enjoined upon Peter, for he gives himself the first mentioned nameapostle (see I Pet. 1:1 and II Pet. 1:1); for which purpose Christ Himself had chosen him, Luke 6:13, 14, and sent him out, as can plainly be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark.
How could it be then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the city of Rome? and, what is still more-for a considerable number of years! unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge, and accepted another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is mentioned of it in Holy Writ.
Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances.-If one should confine himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no wise be shown that Peter was ever at Rome; but, since the holy Scriptures do not relate all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture.
We have shown from the apostolic writings, that during the time Paul wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, derived from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died, after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent.
Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned cannot well be contradicted; who maintain, that Peter shortly before his death came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine of the Evangelical truth; without mentioning anything there about his bishopric, much less, popedom.
DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM

The common tenet of the papists is, that Peter sat as the chief bishop upon the Roman throne; yet the authors whom they adduce for this purpose greatly differ. For, as respects his arrival in that city, some fix it in the year 41 after Christ; others in the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Claudius; others in the second year of this same Claudius; others in the fourth year; others in the beginning of the reign of Nero; others in the fourteenth year after Paul's conversion, etc., as it is noted in Irenaeus, Orosius, Damasus, Hornantius, Th. Aquinus, The Lives of the Saints, etc.
Concerning the length of time he was bishop, there is not less disagreement; as also in regard to how long he was absent from his bishopric sojourning in other places. Cortesius writes of eighteen years, Onuphrius of seven years; but the general opinion among them is, that he sat twentyfive years upon the chair governing their church; although some flatly oppose it. See the last mentioned three authors.
Touching the person who succeeded him in his bishopric, there is much confusion and uncertainty in what is said concerning this subject. Some write that Clemens succeeded Peter; as Septimus Florens Tert.; others, that Linus followed him; as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphan., etc., De Praes 32 r. Contr. lov.; others, that Linus discharged Peter's office two years before death of the latter; as Damasus, etc.; others, that Peter ordered that Clemens should succeed after the death of Linus; In Pontific. Petr. etc., Clem. in Epist. ad Jacobum, etc.; others, that the chair of Peter was vacant while Linus and Cletus lived, Clemens, who was ordained by Peter as his successor, not being willing, as they say, to occupy the chair in their lifetime; which is testified to by Bellarminus; others that Linus occupied the chair eleven years after Peter's death; see Eusebius; others, that Linus died before Peter, and consequently was not his successor in the bishopric; see Turrianus, Sophronius, etc.; others, that Anacletus succeeded Peter, and Clemens, Anacletus. See Homil. de Agon. Pet. and Paul. In Chron, in Anno Clem.; others, finally, that Peter and Linus were bishops simultaneously in the city of Rome; yet so, that Peter was the superior, and Linus, the inferior bishop. See Ruffilnus, Sabellicus, Turrianus, In vita Petri.
OF THE RISE OF THE POPES AFTER THE YEAR 606, AS ALSO OF THE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE SAME

Besides, that in the first three centuries after the death of the apostles, nothing was known in the Roman church, as regards rulers of the same, but common bishops or overseers, until the time of Constantine the Great, and from that time on to the year 600, only archbishops and patriarchs, but no popes, till after the year 606, when, by the power of the Emperor Phocas, the Roman Bishop Boniface III was declared and established the general head and supreme ruler of the whole church; the succession also of the following popes was interrupted by many important occurrences, with respect to the manner of the papal election as well as

Page 53
to the doctrine and the life of the popes themselves, as also with regard to various circumstances pertaining to these matters. Of this an account shall presently be given.
NOTE.-Besides what we have mentioned in our account of holy baptism, for the year 606, of the rise and establishment of the Roman pope, there is also found, concerning the cause of the same (in the Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen, edition of 1617, book VII, page 211, col. 2), this annotation: When the patriarch at Constantinople reproved the Emperor Phocas for the shameful murder he had committed, or would not consent to, or remit, it, while the bishop of Rome winked at, or excused this wicked deed, the Emperor Phocas, in his displeasure, deprived the church of Constantinople of the title, Head of Christendom, and, at the request of Boniface III, conferred it upon the Roman church; which was done amidst great contentions, for the eastern churches could not well consent to it, that the see of Rome should be considered by everybody, and everywhere, as the head and the supreme (of the) church. Compare this with Platinae Reg. Pap. fol. 123; Fase. Temp, fol. 122; Pol. Virgil, lib. ¢. cap. ro; Hist. Georg. lib. ¢; Conrad. Oelutar. fol. rg; Tract, called, Ouden en Nieuwen Godt. lib. r; M. Zanchij Tract. Pap. fol. ¢r; Zeg. Chron. Rom. Pap. fol.r32.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:32PM

Nice cut & paste. If you do this 50 times every day, you'll be as good as your boyfriend, Clint.

Who else stopped reading this canned crap after about 5 paragraphs?

mike| 1.5.12 @ 10:45PM

One word, Margie, and I stop reading and scroll. If you read one you read them all.

Clint may feel insulted.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:54PM

Dude, THIS incessant screed puts ANTHING Clint's posted in a long time to SHAME.

Nick| 1.5.12 @ 11:15PM

Margie,

That doesn't even come close to answering my three very simple questions, now does it?

Is that the same Martyrs Mirror that praises great Catholic saints like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon? Oh, and Origen?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 1:18AM

Continuing on about the fraudulent, ungodly and unbiblical Popery and it's history:

"OF THE ELECTION OF THE POPE; AND OF SUCH AS HAVE USURPED THE CHAIR
In the introduction to the Martyr's Mirror (edition of 1631, fol. 25, 26, 27) mention is made from Cardinal Baronius (we have looked into his history, and found it to be so at the place referred to), of various popes who ran of themselves, without lawful! election or mission; and also of some who usurped the chair, without the consent of the church, merely by the power of princes and potentates.
Among the popes who, without lawful election or mission, ran of themselves, are numbered Stephen VI, Christopher, and Sergius III, with whom it was as follows
Stephen VI expelled Boniface VI by force from the Roman see, after the death of Formosus; and afterwards committed an abominable deed on the dead body of said Formosus, who was counted a lawful and good pope; which deed the Cardinal C. Baronius describes from Luytprandus and others as follows, "In this same year was perpetrated the great wickedness which Luytprandus and others relate, but incorrectly by Sergius; since the acts of the aforementioned Synod under Pope John IX, to which doubtless more credence is to be given, impute it to the then existing pope, Stephen IX.
He caused the dead body of Formosus to be exhumed, and placed it on the pope's throne, dressed in all his papal robes; whereupon he upbraided Formosus, as though he were alive, that he, hrough great ambition, had come from the chair of Porto into that of Rome; anathematized him on this account, had the dead body stripped of all the robes, as also the three fingers with which Formosus according to custom used to ordain, cut off from the same, and thus thrown into the Tiber. Besides this he deposed all those who had been ordained by Formosus, and reordained them; all of which he did from pure madness." See C. Baron. histor. Eccl. Anno 897. num. 1. 2.
After this the same Baronius relates of Christophorus, who also thrust himself into the papal chair, the following:, "Further, in the following year of Christ . . in the tenth indiction,* Pope Benedict IV died, and was buried in St. Peter's church. In his place succeeded Leo, the fifth of this name, a native of Ardea, who held the chair only forty days, being expelled and imprisoned after that by Christophorus, who himself occupied the chair after him." Baron Ann. gob. 907. num. 2.
The aforementioned Christophorus, who had expelled his predecessor, Leo V, from the chair, and taken possession of it himself, was, in his turn, robbed of the occupancy of the chair by another, called Sergius III, who was ambitious of the same dominion; which Sergius, although he attained to the papal dignity, without being elected or called, yea, more than that, was, according to the testimony of the papists themselves, fearfully tyrannical and unchaste, is nevertheless recorded with the aforementioned upon the Register of the legitimate popes of Rome. See Baron. Ann. 907. num. 2., Ann. 9o8. num. 3.
In the midst of this account this papistic writer declares, that these were the dreadful times when every self-constituted pope immediately nullified that which his predecessor had made. Ann. 9o8. num. 2.
Confirmatory of this matter is also that which is adduced in the "Chronijk van den Ondergang," edition 1617, for the year 891, page 315. col. 1, 2. from the tract of "Den Onpartijdigen Rechter."
If one will but consider, says this writer, the spiritual or ecclesiastical perfidiousness and rebelliousness of the popes, he will find in ancient history, that the Roman popes have at all times quarreled and contended with one another for the papal chair.
Thus John XXIV, having come to Bononia with many soldiers, threatened all the cardinals severely, if they would elect a pope who would not please him. When many had been nominated to him, and he would assent to none of them, he was finally requested to state whom he would elect thereto. He replied, "Give me Peter's robe, and I shall deliver it to the future pope." But, when that was done, he put the robe upon his own shoulders, saying, "I am the pope." And though this greatly dis-

* A cycle of fifteen years, instituted by Constantine the Great, in connection with the payment of tribute, and afterwards made a substitute for Olympiads in reckoning time. It was much used in the ecclesiastical chronology of the middle ages, and is reckoned from the year 313 as its origin.-Websters Dictionary.
Page 54
pleased the other cardinals, they were nevertheless compelled to acquiesce in it.
In the same manner John XXII elected himself pope when the election was committed to him. See 9th book of the above mentioned chronicle, for the year'891, at the place there referred to.
NOTE.-In addition to what has been stated in the body [of this work] concerning the popes who exalted themselves to the papal reign, it is also proper to give what may be read in the "Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen," for the year 537, where the popedom of Vigilius is thus spoken of, "This Pope Vigilius was certainly impelled by the spirit of ambition; he greatly aspired to the popedom, and wrongfully ascended the papal chair, for he counseled the empress, how to expel Pope Silverius. He engaged false witnesses, who said that Silverius intended to betray the city of Rome secretly, and surrender it to the Goths (of which we shall afterwards speak more fully); therefore he was deposed from the popedom by force, and relegated into misery; and thus Vigilius six days afterwards became pope. The Empress Theodora desired him to reinstate Anthenius at Constantinople, as he had promised to do; but Vigilius refused, saying that one was not bound to keep a bad promise against one's conscience." Compared with the account of Platina, in his "Panselijh Register," fol. iio. Also, Chron. Fasci. Temp. fol. 117.
OF SOME WHO ATTAINED POSSESSION OF THE ROMAN CHAIR THROUGH SECULAR POWER AND OTHER UNGODLY MEANS

There is, moreover, mention made of another kind of popes, who attained possession of the Roman chair, not properly through themselves, inasmuch as they were too weak, but through the power of princes and potentates, yea, even through the Arians. Among these are particularly numbered the two popes named, Felix, both of whom were exalted to papal dignity, and put in their office by Arian Kings, who ruled Italy, and consequently, also the city of Rome; the one by Constantius,* the other by Theodoric, both of whom belonged to the Arian sect. Cas. Bar. Ann. 526. mums. 2.
But quite the contrary happened when Pope Silverius was reputed to favor the Goths, who sided with the Arians. Prince Belizarius deposed him, and sent him away into Greece, putting Vigilius in his stead as pope. According to the testimony of Procopius. Ann. 538. num. 2.
After Vigilius, Peiagius was declared pope by two bishops only, and one from Ostien, ** through the favor and assistance of the emperor Justinian; notwithstanding, as Anastasius says, the bad suspicion of having caused the death of the previous Pope Vigilius, rested on him; for which reason none of the other ecclesiastics, nay, not even the

* This Constantius was a Roman emperor, while Theodoric was King of the Goths.
* Probably Ostia, a town at the mouth of the Tiber. (Pub.) laity, would have communion or anything to do with him. Ann. 555. mum. 2.
OF THE DREADFUL TIME, CALLED BY THE PAPISTS THE IRON AND LEADEN CENTURY, WHICH WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION OF THE POPES

The oftmentioned cardinal Caesar Baronius, proceeding in his account of the Register of the Popes, arrives at the year 901, the beginning of the tenth century, where he bursts out, as if with sorrow, calling this time hard, unfruitful, and productive of much evil; and comparing it to an iron and leaden century, full of wickedness and darkness, particularly in respect to the great irregularity practiced in the installing and deposing of the Roman popes; which was done partly by the Roman princes, partly by the princes of Tuscany, who, now this one, then that one, usurped the authority to elect the popes, and to dethrone them; which happened in such a manner that all the preceding abuses committed with reference to the Roman chair were mere child's play in comparison with it.
For now, as Baronius writes, many monsters were thrust into this chair as popes; which continued throughout this whole century; yea, for a hundred and fifty years, namely from the year 900 to about the year 1049, when the German Ottoes, who occupied the imperial throne, interposed between both, although they, not less than their predecessors, retained as their prerogative the right of electing and rejecting the popes. Baron. Ann. 901. mum. 1.
The same cardinal relates, that in these awful and terrible times some popes attained to the popedom not only by the power of princes and potentates, but through the foolish love of certain dishonorable and loose women, by whom Rome was ruled; which we could in no wise believe, had not so eminent a man and rigid papist, as Baronius was, described it so plainly and circumstantially. See in Baronius' Church History, printed at Antwerp 1623 for the year 912. mum. 1; also 928. mums. i; also 931. mums. 1.
Our soul is amazed, and we are ashamed to relate all that is adduced there from various papistic writers, concerning the election of some of the popes.
O God! open the eyes of these blind lovers of papacy, that they may see, what succession it is, of which they have so long boasted in vain; so that they may truly turn to Thee and Thy church, and be saved I
NOTE.-With respect to this matter, the writer of the Introduction to the Martyr's Mirror, of the year 1831, says, "After that arose a time far more horrible, etc., for the margraves of Tuscany, and after them the emperors, exercised so much violence with reference to the papal chair, that they thrust into it many monsters;'among whom was John X, who was thrust into the chair by Theo-

Page 55
dora, mistress of Rome, while Lando was deposed." Introduction, fol. 26. col. 2. from Baron. Church History, Anno 912. num. I.
After that he relates, that John X was deposed by Theodora's daughter, who also reigned over Rome, and that John XI, a bastard child of Pope Sergius III, was put into it."And thus," he writes,"have whores and rogues, according to the testimony of cardinal Baronius, ruled the papal chair, deposing and instituting whomsoever they would." Fol. 27. Col. i. from Baronius, Anno 931. num. i. Continuing, the aforementioned author remarks, "In this iron century it also happened, that Stephen IX, having illegitimately attained to the chair, was marked in the face by some rogues, for which reason he staid in his house." Same place, from Bdronius Anno 9¢o. num. z.
But, in order to give an account of those particular ones only, who attained unlawfully to the papal chair, since we are treating of the succession and mission of the popes, we must also mention Pope John XII, who, being only eighteen .years old, was forcibly put into the chair, and made pope by his father, the margrave of Tuscany. Afterwards he was deposed by a council at Rome, on account of his wicked life; but he remained pope nevertheless, since nobody would excommunicate the pope, however wicked his life might be, as Baronius relates. Compare Baron. Anno 955. num. I. with Anno 963. num. z. 2.
After that, Albericus, the count of Tusculum, made his son, who was but ten years old, pope, and by his authority put him into the chair under the name of Benedict IX'. After he had reigned about nine years, a certain faction of the. Romans elected another pope. When Gratianus, a priest at Rome, saw this, he bought out both of them with money, and called himself Gregory VI.
But the Emperor, not willing. to tolerate this, deposed all three of them, and put Clemens II in their stead; and then Damascus II; after him Leo IX; and finally, Victor II.
Thus the imperial line of the popes continued, until the clergy itself became powerful enough to elect the popes without waiting for the imperial mission, which formerly had been deemed necessary; this afterwards gave rise to great schisms and divisions in the Roman Church. Compare concerning all this Baron. Hist. Eccl. Anno 1033, num. 2. with Anno 1044. nuvn. 2. 3; also, Anno 10¢6. num. 1; Anno 10¢8. num. 1; Anno 10¢9 nun. 2; Anno ro55.
With regard to the aforesaid matters, the writer"of the Introduction mentioned says (Fol. 27. Col. 2), "This being taken into consideration, we say, that it is not true that they, namely the Romanists, have an uninterrupted succession from the days of the apostles to the present time, as they would make the people believe, with their long register of popes, whom they have connected as the links of a chain, as though they, through lawful mission had always maintained a continuous succession; but we have proved here that this chain of succession is, in many ways, broken., "In the first place, by. Stephen VII and his successors, who have forcibly thrust themselves into the chair. These certainly had no mission; and where the mission ceases, the succession ceases also., "In the second place, by those who were thrust into the chair, without the order or sanction of the church, only by kings and princes, yea, even by whores, through lewd love; or who bought the same with money, as we have shown. These also were certainly not sent; or, if they were sent, it must be proved, by whom: for two contrary things cannot consist together. If they were sent, they did not thrust themselves into the chair, as Baronius says notwithstanding; but if they thrust themselves into it, or were thrust into it by others through unlawful means, then they were not sent, and consequently, had no succession from the apostles." Introduction. fol. 28. Col. z.
TWO, THREE, AND FOUR POPES REIGNING AT THE SAME TIME; THE CHAIR OF ROME OCCASION ALLY WITHOUT A POPE FOR A LONG TIME

Formerly, when the papal dominion was coveted, the aim was directed solely to the Roman chair, but now it was quite different; for, instead of according to Rome, the honor of electing the pope, as had always been the case heretofore, they of Avignon, in France began, without regarding the Romans or Italians, to constitute themselves the electors of the pope; insomuch that they for this end elected a certain person, whom they call Benedict XIII, notwithstanding the Roman chair was occupied by a pope called Gregory XII; thus setting not only pope against pope, but France against Italy, and Avignon against Rome.*
Of this, P. J. Twisk gives the following account"At this time there reigned two popes, who were for a long time at great variance with each other; the one at Rome in Italy, the other at Avignon., "When Pope Innocentius at Rome was dead, Benedict XIII still occupied the papal chair in France. Then Gregory XII was elected pope." Chron. P. .I. Twish, ISth Book, for the year 1406. page .758. col. z. ex Chron. Platinae, fol. 396. Fasc. Temp. fol. 187.
The same writer, after narrating successively several other things which happened in the five subsequent years, again makes mention, for the year 1411, of this Pope Benedict, who was elected at Avignon; as well as of two others, who arose during his reign, namely, Gregory and John; and

* After pope Anastasius, Symmachus was elected pope in a tumult; and immediately also Laurentius was elected, with whom he had two contests, yet came off victor, as the papists say, for the clergy and king Diederik were on his side. But after four years some of the clergy, who lusted after uproar and contention, and some Roman senators, recalled Laurentius; but they were sent into banishment. This caused a fearful riot at Rome.-. J. Twisk, 5th Book, Anno 499. page 171. col. 2 ex Platinal Chron, fol. 101. Fasc. Temp. fol. 114.
Page 56
also of their mutual contentions. These are his words, "At that time. there were three popes at once, who incessantly excommunicated one another, and of whom the one gained this potentate for his adherent, the other another. Their names were Benedict, Gregory, and John., "These strove and contended with each other, not for the honor of the Son of God, nor in behalf of the reformation and correction of the adulterated doctrines or the manifold abuses of the (Roman) church, but solely for the supremacy; to obtain which, no one hesitated to perpetrate the most shameful deeds., "In brief, the emperor exerted himself with great diligence, and traveled three years through Europe, to exterminate this shameful and pernicious strife and discord which prevailed in Christendom. Having, therefore, rejected these three schismatic popes, he brought it about, that Otto Columnius was made pope by common consent; for, within the last twenty-nine years there had always been at least two popes; one at Rome, and the other at Avignon. When one blessed, the other cursed.* See aforementioned Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1411. page 765. Col. r, a.
Concerning the overthrow of these three popes the same author gives this statement, "In this year, Pope John XXIV, having been convicted in fifty four articles, of heresies, crimes, and base villainies, was deposed from papal dignity, by the council of Constance, and given in custody to the palsgrave. When these articles were successively read to him, he sighed deeply and replied, - that he had done something still worse, namely, that he had come down from the mountain of Italy, and committed himself under the jurisdiction of a council, in a country where he possessed neither authority nor power.
After he had been in confinement at Munich three years, to the astonishment of everyone, he was released, and made cardinal and bishop of Tusculum, by Pope Martin V, whose feet he submissively came to kiss at Florence. Shortly afterwards in the year 1419, he died there, and was buried with great pomp and solemnity in the church of St. John the Baptist.
After he had thus received his sentence, the other two popes were summoned; of whom Gregory XII, who resided at Rimini, sent Charles Maletesta thither, with instructions to abdicate voluntarily in his name the papal dignity; in reward of which he was made a legate in Marca d'Ancona, where he subsequently died of a broken heart, at Racanay, a seaport on the Adriatic Sea.
Benedict XIII, the pope at Avignon, remained obstinate in his purpose, so that neither entreaties nor threats, nor the authority of the council could move him, to submit, or lay down his office, for the tranquillity of all Christendom. See the afore

* So writes Jan Crispijn. mentioned Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1415 page 773. Col. a. and 774. Col. z.
NOTE -Pope Benedict XIII, through the incitation of the Ring of France, and the University of Paris, sent his legates to Pope Boniface IX; but they received as an answer, that their master could not properly be called a pope, but an antipope; whereupon they refuted him. See De Ondergang, 15th Book, Anno 1404. page 757. Col. z.
Here it is proper to note what the last mentioned author narrates concerning the plurality of the popes, who existed at one and the same time., "Besides this," he writes,"it is related that there were sometimes four, sometimes three, and sometimes two popes at the same time."
Victor, Alexander III, Calixtus III, and Paschalis, possessed together the papal authority, at the time of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa; and also Benedict VIII, Sylvester II, and Gregory V were popes together, till finally, Henry III deposed them.
Likewise Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and Alexander V arrogated, by excommunications, the papal authority.*
Further, how Stephen III and Constantine, Sergius III and Christophorus, Urbanus V and Clemens VII, Eugene IV and Clemens VIII, and many other popes, whom to mention it would take too long, strove and contended with each other for the triple crown, their own historians have sufficiently elucidated. See in the 9th Book o f the Chronicle for the year 891. page 315. Col. 2. from the tract, Den Onpartiidigen Rechter.
HOW THE ROMAN CHAIR STOOD VACANT

As great as was at times the inordinate desire manifested by some for the possession of the chair of papal dominion, so great was at other times the negligence and aversion as regards the promotion of the same cause;** for it occasionally happened that the chair stood vacant for a considerable time, in consequence of the contentions and dissensions of the cardinals; so that the whole Roman church was without a head; without which, as the papists themselves assert, it cannot subsist.
In order to demonstrate this matter, we shall (so as not to intermix all sorts of writers) adduce the various notes of P. J. Twisk, who gives information in regard to this subject from Platina's Registers of the Popes, and other celebrated papistic authors, in his Chronicle, printed Anno 1617 at Hoorn; from which we shall briefly extract the following instances, and present them to the reader.

* Concerning this matter, P. J, Twisk gives this account, "At this time there were three popes at once, namely, Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and Alexander V. Thus was the' great city, the spiritual Babylon divided into three parts, as a token of its approaching fall.-Chron. for the year 1409, page 762, col. 1.
* Where no true foundation is, there is no stability; this is apparent here: for as immoderate as they were in seeking to possess the Roman chair, so immoderate they were also in leaving it vacant.
Page 57
We shall, however, omit brief periods of a few days, weeks, or months, and pass on to intervals of more than a year, which, consequently, are not reckoned by months, or still lesser periods. In this we shall begin with the shortest period, and end with the longest.
On page 225, cot. 1, mention is made of pope Martin I (in the Register the seventy-sixth), that he was carried away a prisoner by Constantine, emperor at Constantinople, and sent into exile, where he died; whereupon the chair stood vacant for over a year. Ex. Hist. Georg; lib. 4. Platin. fol. 135. Zeg. fol. 224, 225.
Page 260, cot. 2, the same writer relates of Paul I (the ninety-fifth in the Register), that he excommunicated Constantine V, who had thrown the images out of the church; and that Constantine, not heeding this, in his turn excommunicated the pope; whereupon the latter died, and the Roman chair was without occupant, and the church without a head, one year and one month. Ex. Platinae Regist. Pap. fol. 166. hist. Georg. lib. 4. Franc. Altars. fol. 54.
After that he. makes mention of. Pope Honorius I (in the Regiter the seventy-second), that he, having instituted the exaltations of the Holy Cross, the Saturday processions, which had to be held at Rome, the special prayers in the invocation of the departed saints, etc., was deposed by a certain council at Constantinople; and that, he having died the chair at Rome was vacant for one year and seven months. See above mentioned Chronicle, page 218. cot. 1. ex hist. Georg. lib. 4. Franc. Ala. Reg. fol. 44. Platin. Succ. Papae. fol. 130.
When Pope John XXIV was deposed on account of his wicked life and ungodly conduct, and placed in confinement somewhere, in the time of emperor Sigismund and the council of Constance, there was for the time of two years and five months no one who took charge of the papal government; hence the chair was without an occupant for that length of time. See aforementioned Chronicle, for the year 1411, p. 769. cot. v. ex Fasc. Temp. fol. 187. Platin. fol. 401. Onu f . fol. 406. 417. Hfst. Eccl. Casp. Hedio. part. 3. lib. 11. Chronol. Leonh. lib. 6. Joh. Stumpf. fol. 21. Hist. Georg. lib. 9. Hist. Mart. Adr. fol. 53. to 66. Jan Crisp. fol. 356. to 175. Zeg. fol. 326.
Moreover, twice it happened, that for the space of about three years no one was pope, or general head of the Roman church; first, after the deposition of Pope Benedict XIII of Avignon; secondly, before the election of Otto Calumna, called Martin V, thus named because he was consecrated or ordained on St. Martin's day. Concerning the first time, see P. J. Twisk, Chron. for the year 1415. page 774 cot. 1; concerning the second, see in the same book, for the year 1417, or two years afterwards p. 781. cot. 1. compared with Fasc. Temp. fol. 187 Platin. fol. 470. Hist. Georg. lib. 6. Mern. fol. 913. Seb. Fr. (old edition) fol. 31. After the death of Pope Nicholas I (the 108th in the Register), information is obtained from Platina, according to the account of various other authors, relative to the condition of the Roman church at that time; namely, that she had no pope or head for eight years, seven months and nine days. Compare Plat. Reg. Pap. fol. 197. with Georg. hist. lib. 5. Joh. Munst. fol. 14. Mern. fol. 556. Francisc. Ala. fol. 60. Also, P. J. Twisk, Chron. 9th Book, edition of 1617. p. 297. cot. 2.
OF THE UNGODLY LIFE AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF SOME OF THE POPES

Many of the ancient writers, even good Romanists, are so replete with the manifold ungodly and extremely disorderly conduct of some of those who occupied the papal chair, and are placed in the Register of the true successors of Peter, that one hardly knows how to begin, much less how to end.*
We shall therefore, so as not to cause any doubts as regards our impartiality, not adduce all, but only a few, and these not the worst, but, when contrasted with those whom we shall not mention, the very best examples of the kind; and shall then soon leave them, as we have no desire to stir up this sink of rottenness, and pollute our souls with its stench.
Concerning the simony or sacrilege of some popes, a brief account is given from Platina and other papistic writers, in the Chronijk van den Ondergang, 9th Book, for the year 828. p. 281. cot. 2. and p. 282. cot. 1. The writer of said chronicle, having related the complaint of the king of France

* Besides what is told in the body of the work concerning the ungodly life and disorderly conduct of some popes, it is related by other authors, that some of them were accused (even by those of the Roman church) of heresy, and apostasy from the Roman faith. From"Platina's Register of the Popes, number 37," is adduced the apostasy of Pope Liberius to the tenets of the Arians; which happened in this wise: The emperor, being at that time tainted with the tenets of the Arians, deposed Pope Liberius, and sent him into exile ten years. But when Liberius, overcome by the grievousness of his misery, became infected with the faith and the confession of the Arian sect, he was victoriously reinstated by the emperor, into his papal chair at Rome. Compare Chron. Platinae (old edition) fol. 73. Fasc. Temp fol. 102. Chron. Holl. div. 2. cap. 20. with P. J. Twisk Chron. 4th Book, for the year 353, page 150. cot. 2.
Concerning the apostasy of Pope Anastasius II to the tenets of Achacius, bishop of Constantinople, and, consequently. to the Nestorians, we find, from various Roman authors, this annotation: Anastasius was at first a good Christian, but was afterwards seduced by the heretic Achacius, bishop of Constantinople. This was the second pope of bad repute who adhered to the heresy of Nestorius, even as Liberius adhered to the heresy of Arius. -Plat. Regist. Pap. fol. 100. Fasc. Temp. fol. 113. Chron. Holl. div. c. 20. compared with the Chronijk van den Ondergang, edition of 1617, 5th Book, for the year 497. p. 171. cot. 2.
Some time after Hononus I had been exalted to the dignity of the Roman chair, it was found that he did not maintain the doctrines of the Roman church, but was opposed to them, although he seemed to ingratiate himself with her in some external things. Concerning this, the following words are given by a certain author: Honorius added the invocation of the saints to the litanies: he built many temples, and decorated them with great magnificence; but this pope was afterwards condemned as a heretic, together with six prelates, by the sixth council of Constantinople. Compare-Hist. Georg . lib. 4. Franc. Ala. fol. 44. Platin, Regiat. Pap. fol. 130. with the last mentioned Chronicle, edition of 1617, for the year 622, page 218. cot. 1.
In addition to the evil testimony which is given of John XXIV, P. J. Twisk gives the following account, "This Pope John, as some say, forcibly took possession of the papal chair, and is styled by the ancient writers a true standard-bearer of all heretics and epicures. He was a man better fitted for arms and war, than for the service of God."-Chronijk, P. J. Twisk, 15th Book, for the year 1411. p. 768. eol. 2.

Page 58
about the revenue of twenty-eight tonnen gold [2,800,000 guilders, or $784,000], annually drawn by the popes from said kingdom, proceeds, to say, "How true the foregoing is, appears sufficiently from the fact that John XXII. at his death left two hundred and fifty tonnen gold ($7,000,000) in his private treasury; as Franciscus Petrarcha, a credible writer, plainly states.
Boniface VII, finding that he could no longer remain in safety at Rome, surreptitiously took the precious jewels and treasures. from St. Peter's coffers, and fled with them to Constantinople.
Clemens VIII, and other popes, were at various times convicted of such sacrilege, by their own people.
Gregory IX sold his absolution to the emperor for a hundred thousand ounces of gold.
Benedict IX, being stricken with fear, sold to Gregory VI the papal chair, for fifteen hundred pounds of silver.
The simony and sacrilege of Alexander Vi is also sufficiently known, from his epitaph, whieh we, for certain reasons, omit.
Further, how Leo X, through Tetzel, and many other popes, through their legates and nuncios, sold their letters of indulgence, is better known throughout all so-called Christendom than the popes of Rome desire. Compare this with Ghron.. Plat. ( old edition) fol. 183. Fran. Ala. fol. 58 Onpartijdigen Rechter, fol. 28.
Concerning the open tyranny, secret treachery, and deadly poisoning, imputed to some of the popes, the following account is given from Vergerius and others
I. Their Tyranny.-Julius II had more than two hundred thousand Christians put to death, in the space of seven years.
Gregory IX caused the emperor's envoys by whom he was informed, that Jerusalem was retaken, to be strangled, contrary to all justice.
Clemens IV openly beheaded Conrad, the son of the king of Sicily, without valid reasons, or legal proceedings.
It is not necessary to give a recital here, of the innumerable multitude of true Christians, who, through the pretensions of some popes, were deprived of life, in all parts of the earth, by fearful deaths at the hands of the executioner, only on account of their religion; for this is sufficiently known, and needs no further demonstration.
II. Their Treachery.-The Emperor Frederick, at the diet of Nuremburg, openly complained of the treachery of Pope Alexander III, and that in the presence of the princes of the empire, before whom he read the letter containing the treason, which the pope had sent to the soldiers of the Turkish emperor.
Gregory II secretly issued a prohibition, not to pay to the Emperor Leo his customary (and due) tax.
Alexander VI availed himself of the assistance of the Turks (or at least, called upon them), against the French.
III Their Poisoning.-Ancient writers mention, that Pope Paul III poisoned his own mother and niece, that the inheritance of the Farnesi might fall to him.
Innocentius IV, through a priest, administered poison to the emperor, in a host, thus removing him from this life.
Moreover, how another pope, whose name is sufficiently known, put to death by poison, in accordance with Turkish custom, the brother of Gemeno Vajazet, the Mohammedan emperor, which was contrary to common justice, because he was ransomed with two tonnen treasure, needs not to be recounted, as the fame of it has gone out both into the east and the west.
This same pope had at a certain time determined to poison in like manner some cardinals, when the cupbearer made a mistake in the tankard containing the poison (as the ancient writers have annotated), and he who had arranged this, was himself served with it, insomuch that he died with the cardinals who had drank of it. Compare De Tractaten Contarcene, hergerij des Onpartijdigen Rechters, especially pp. 48, 49, 50, with the Cleronijk van den O;ndergang, first part, for the year 1227. p. 544. col. 1. 2. Also p. 768. col. 2, of the bad conduct of Pope John XXIV, taken from Fase. Temp. f od. 187. Platin. fol. 401 Ontc f r. fol. 406. 417. Hist. Eccl. Cusp. H.edio. part 3. lib. 11. Chronolog. Leonh. lib. 6. Henr. Bull. of the councils, 2d Book, chap. 8. Joh. Stumph. fol. 21. Hist. Georg. lib. 6. Seb. Fra. (old edition) fol. 31 fol. 89. Hist. Andriani fol. 53 to fod. 66. Jan Crisp. fol. 256 tto 369. Chron. Car. lib. 5. Zeg. fol. 326.
OF THE DIVINE JUDGMENTS AND PUNISHMENTS VISITED UPON SOME OF THE POPES

The divine vengeance for great misdeeds is sometimes carried out in this life, and sometimes reserved for the life to come.* The vengeance which is inflicted in this life, is sometimes executed immediately by God Himself; at other times He uses means-either the elements, or things composed of the elements, yet without life; and sometimes He does it by means of living creatures as, men, beasts, etc. However, here we shall only speak of the judgment of God visited upon some of the popes in such a manner and through such means, as will be shown.
In the eighth book of the Chrot2ijk van den Undergang der Tyrannen, for the year 767, page 262, col. 2, several examples of this kind are successively related, which we shall present here as is most suitable, and in the best possible order.**

* But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds. Rom. 2:5, 6.
* Notwithstanding, the examples, related in the body of the work are recorded by P. J. Twisk, it is proper to state, that they were extracted from various papistic writers.
Page 59
The author of said chronicle, after mentioning the ignominious expulsion of Pope Sylvester Campanus from the city of Rome, relates the sad ending of Constantine, Hadrian, John Benedict, Boniface, Lucius% Innocentius, Nicholas, Paul, Leo, Clement, etc.
Pope Constantine II, having led an ungodly life, was deprived, in a council, of both his eyes, and the papal power, and then put into a convent.
Hadrian III, fleeing from Rome, came to Venice in the habit of a gardener, where he was ordered to work in a garden.
Hadrian IV was choked to death by a fly, which flew into his mouth, or, as others say, into his drink, while he was drinking.
John XI,* being apprehended by the soldiers of a certain Guido, was smothered with a pillow, which they held upon his mouth.
John XXII was crushed by the falling in of the vault of a pavilion, and thus departed this life.
Benedict Vl,** was shut up in the Castle Angelo, by Cynthius, a citizen of Rome, and there strangled by him, on account of his great villainy.
Benedict IX was killed by poison, which had been put into a fig by an abbess, who was considered a devout, spiritual daughter.
The body of Boniface VII, who had died a sudden death, was dragged along the street, with his feet tied to a rope, and ignominiously buried in the common grave.
Lucius II, about to storm the capitol, whither the senators had fled, was so seriously pelted with stones, that he died soon afterwards.
When Innocentius IV had unjustly sentenced to death Robert of Lincoln, because he had censured, with the mouth as well as with the pen, the nefarious deeds of the popes, and Robert therefore appealed to Christ, the Supreme judge, the pope was found dead in his bed the following day. ***
Nicholas III died very unexpectedly of apoplexy (called the stroke of God).
Paul II, having supped very merrily, died soon after, likewise apoplexy.
Leo X died while laughing and frolicking at his cups.
Clemens VIII, having conspired with Franciscus, king of France, against the Emperor Charles V, was afterwards apprehended by the emperor's captains, derided above measure, ultimately reinstated in the papal chair, but finally, in the year 1534, suffocated, together with several cardinals, with the smoke of torches. From Onpar. Recht. Also, from various other accepted authors who have previously been referred to. ****

* John XI was put for John XXII; by the author from whom this was taken, but this is an error.
* This Beneict VI was also put for his successor, Benedict IX; which error we have corrected.
** Our author relates, that before the death of Pope Innocentius IV a voice was hard in the papal court, saying"Come, thou wretched man, to the judgment of God!"
*** Many more such examples might be related here, but, since by these few our aim is sufficiently understood, we deem it unnecessary to enter more deeply into this subject, and shall, therefore, let this suffice.
CONCLUSION OF THE MATTERS HERE RELATED

We will now take leave of the popes, and let them pass. It is enough for us to know, that their succession, of which the papists boast so much, is confused and vain, or, at least, without tenable grounds. How we have proved this, is not for us to say; we let others judge.
This would be a proper time in order to exhibit the highly renowned Latin church, the Roman Babylon, in her full form-to bring up from the bottom, and present minutely and in the best order, the manifold and implacable contentions which have arisen from time to time in, with, and among them, on matters of faith, although they have so much to say about their extraordinary unity: how the popes contended against the councils, and the councils against the popes; how one annulled and rejected what the other had made and instituted; yea, how they sometimes persecuted one another even unto death, and devoured and killed each other in the most cruel manner, even as though they were fighting with their avowed enemies; to say nothing of the great amount of superstition and human invention,* which, like horrible monsters and abortions, have proceeded, now by one, then by another, from the lap of the misnamed holy Roman church; for to treat of this, as the subject demands, would be almost an endless task, or, at least, require a whole book. What was once a comedy (with respect to the gay and merry regime of the papal dominion) has, through the beginnings of its downfall, been changed into a tragedy. However, what we have shown, relates only to this present life; but the most mournful tragedy, according to the threatening of God (still we hope for the best), is yet to come, and concerns the future and eternal life.**
Besides these most ungodly things which we have mentioned, they were drunk with the blood of the saints; yea, they did not only pour out as water the blood of the beloved friends and children of God, and cool their thirst for blood therewith, but, besides inconceivable cruelties, they heaped also the greatest ignominy upon their bodies, throwing them like mire upon the earth, or giving them to the beasts for food, or, on stakes and wheels, to the birds to devour.***
God shall certainly visit this yet upon them, and not let it go unavenged."He that toucheth you," says Zechariah to the church of God,"toucheth the apple of his eye" (Zech. 2:8).

*"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," saith the Lord. Matt. 15:9.
. ** Everything has its opposite: weeping is the opposite to laughing;iwailing and mourning, to shouting and rejoicing; but in all this t is better to rejoice last than before."Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with theel when thou shall cease to spoil, thou shall be spoiled; and when thou shall make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee" (Isa. 33:1).

** ' Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:1, 2)."If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: be that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword" (Rev. 13:9, 10).
Page 60
Oh, that they would become converted betimes! Oh, that they would anticipate the uplifted rod of the divine wrath! Oh, that they would fear, and escape, through genuine repentance, the fearful kindled fire of his everlasting displeasure, which the wicked and impenitent shall certainly incur. That meanwhile all those who .are still imprisoned in Babylon, and sit in the darkness and shadow of death, would, for the preservation of their soul, flee out of her; that they would set out for Jerusalem, the spiritual vision of peace (understand, the true church of God); that they would seek their souls' salvation while it is time, yea, that they would find, obtain and preserve it! This is certainly a thing to be wished for.
NOTE-"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her sins" ( Rev. 18:4) ,
These words as it appears are taken from the address of the prophet Jeremiah to the Israelites who were in bondage, in Babylon, saying as in a hasty and affrighted voice, "Flee out of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul; be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance; he will render unto her a recompense" ( Jer. 51:6).
In like manner men must also hastily come out of the spiritual Babel, out of the confusion and many corrupt, human forms of worship and vanities of the world."Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (Acts 2:40)."The Lord give thee understanding in all things" (II Tim. 2:7).

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs008.htm

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:22AM

More nonsensical, run-on spam. Lemme guess, Clint's part of your little polygamist sect & you let him use your computer to cut & paste this insipid & turgid drivel.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 2:10AM

It's called real history, anti-Christ.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:32PM

Con Artist Chef is an anti-Christ and liar. Therefore he joins himself with the Apostate Religion in his hatred toward Bible believing Christians.

You have proven that you are indeed the brother of Clint!

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 2:02PM

Margie,

Apostolic Succession is taught by the Sacred Scriptures:

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands [...]." - 2 Timothy 1:6

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2

Now, where are those answers to my three very simple questions?
It's been 2 weeks and I'm still waiting.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:30PM

ALL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS KNOW YOU LIE THAT THIS IS A LIE.

And you are not blessed.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 4:34PM

Margie,

Your comment doesn't address the Scripture verses that I have posted. Nor, does it address my three very simple questions.
I'm still waiting.
God Bless!

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 2:18PM

Try reading everything in your precious Martyrs Mirror, Margie:

Page 129
IRENEUS, AN ANCIENT TEACHER, AFTER MANY TORMENTS, PUT TO DEATH FOR THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AT LYONS, IN FRANCE, ABOUT THE YEAR 210

Ireneus, by descent an Asiatic, was born at Smyrna. In his youth he attended school, and was a disciple of Polycarp, who was appointed by the apostle John bishop of the church at Smyrna, and afterwards became a martyr, as we have already shown in the proper place. On account of his (Ireneus') special fitness, he subsequently became bishop of the church at Lyons in France, in the place of Photinus. His erudition was so great, that Eusebius extols him more than any of the learned who lived before and in his time. Tertullian called him"the most remarkable investigator of all manner of learning." Jerome said that he was"an apostolic man, who lived next to the time of the apostles." Epiphanius gave him the title of a"holy and ancient divine," yea, a"successor of the apostles." In his ministry he was so faithful a servant in the house of the Lord, that he had the oversight not only of the church at Lyons, where he was bishop, and other churches in France, but even of some churches in Asia and Phrygia.
Concerning his death, the ancient historians have left us but little information of the time as well as of the manner of his martyrdom. We find, however, in regard to it the following words, "That, when the persecution of the Christians, under Severus, had been instituted in all the countries of the Romans, the city of Lyons, too, pursuant to the command of the Emperor, was surrounded with soldiers, and all the Christians in it put to death with the sword, or beheaded; but that Ireneus, the shepherd of them all, was sought with special diligence, and, when found, was put to death with manifold tortures, and was buried by Zacharia, his elder." Ex actis Procons. Perditis hoc Tantum extat. Adr. Martyrol. 28 Jun. Abr. Mell., fol. 59, cot. 3, and fol. 60, cot. 1, ex Hieron. Catal, Iren. idem Hieron. epist. 84 ad Magnum, and 29 ad Theodorum Euseb., lib. 4, cap. 20. Tertull. lib. Contra Valentin., cap.,5. Hieron. epist. 29. ad Theodorum and in Catal. Epiph. Haer. 24 and 31. Also, Joh. Gys.,1657, fol. 18, cot. 3, 4. Also, P. J. Twisck, 3d book, for the year 210, 28th June, p. 56, cot. 1. He adds these words, "On the 28th of June, A. D. 210, in the fifth persecution, Bishop Irenus (he means to say: Ireneus) was put to death, together with many citizens, for the confession of Christ."
He says of the Lord's Supper, "There is something heavenly and something earthly; the earthly is bread, which is for the nourishment of the body, and points us to the heavenly, that is, Christ with His merits, which is the food of the soul."
In the Revelation of John he writes that"antichrist will arise in the Latin, that is, the Roman church, and will be a Roman." Also, "Antichrist, who is a thief and apostate, would be worshiped as God, and, though being but a servant, would be proclaimed king." From Histor. Georg., lib. 2. hinc. Cal., fol. 352. P. P. Cock, fol. 59.

This, too, is real history, is it not, Margie?

IRENAEUS WAS TAUGHT BY SAINT POLYCARP, WHO WAS TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN. HE WAS A GREAT CATHOLIC SAINT.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:28PM

The book, Martyrs Mirror IS precious, indeed.
It is the history of the Bible believing Christians and their torture and murders beginning with the first Martyr, Jesus Christ, and continuing on from there, and includes details of the Martyrs of the Apostles and other Christians who CLING TO THE SCRIPTURES AND WERE PUT TO DEATH BY THE MURDEROUS POPES.

It gives an account of HOW this Apostate Religion of yours, which you cling to became an Apostate Religion, because of its perverted teachings.

The biggest one of which is that Mary is the Mother of God and reigns supreme over "The Trinity."

Then, that you are actually physically eating Christ's Body when you take the Lord's Supper, but of which Jesus Himself says to do "In remembrance of Him".

Your Popes KILLED Christians for six centuries and showed as much sheer vile hatred for them as you and your perverted pals here show towards me, or any other Bible believing Christian that dares to confront you liars.

But they are too weak or too cowardly, and so they will just sit by and read here. They either are lukewarm in their own Christian lives, or don't want to ruffle anyone's haughty Catholic feathers and get on their "bad sides".

So yes indeed Papist Nick, the book, Martyrs Mirror IS precious. As it is written:

"Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints." Ps. 116:15.

And SAINTS are NOT what your cult teaches, they are EVERY SINGLE BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN LIVING AND DIED.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 4:40PM

The spirit of anti-Christ entered in through the frauds who began what is called "the Pope".

They are the ones who began torturing and murdering Bible believing Christians for the reason that they refused to accept the false and unbiblical teachings that they brought with them, and thus began, the Catholic church, and Apostate and ungodly Religion with a murderous reign for six centuries.

The Christians who were killed that were called ana- baptists, or Baptists, were the ones who rejected the Papists teaching of infant baptism, because it was against Christ's teaching of repentance first, which only adults are capable of doing~ and then to be baptized.
And for this they were murdered. Men, women, and children.
The personal slandering done against me here by the lying Papist only makes me stronger in my defense of the Word of God, so keep on!

Millions of Bible believing Christians, yes indeed, just like me for I share their faith, the faith of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of Mankind, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the ONE and ONLY Mediator between God and Men.

READ MARTYRS MIRROR for the history of this, about how the Catholic Religion came about by heretical teachings and superstitions not in the Bible but taught by the perverted in mind.
Men whose consciences were seared as with a hot iron.

The Catholic Harlot Religion has NEVER repented of these false teachings and still teaches them today, and the filthy hatred of Christians who believe every Word of God is still just as filthy and hate filled as it was then.

Find out for yourselves about just what it is that you are believing as taught by the liars, and repent and believe in the Gospel of God as it is written in the Bible, which contain the Holy Words of God.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY
SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

Notwithstanding in this century the seat of antichrist was exalted to its highest altitude, inasmuch as the Emperor Phocas, A. D. 606, conferred upon the Roman Bishop the title of Papa, that is, pope or supreme father, which name was first assumed by Boniface III, writing, in the decrees emitted by him to enjoin obedience, "We will, we ordain, we decree, we command, etc.; thus I will, thus I ordain, thus I decree, thus I command;" whereby many superstitions and human inventions were presented to the people as the Word of God; such as image worship, salutation of the sacrament, observance of infant baptism as necessary to salvation, etc.; yet many pious people not only refused to obey all these things which the pope prescribed, but some even flatly opposed it, daring to censure, reject, and contume, some in this and some in that respect, the papal and Roman superstitions, as among other points, was done with regard to infant baptism and all that pertains to it, with which not only some of the common people, but also some eminent and learned men were dissatisfied, so that they abandoned it altogether, yea, indicated by words and actions, that they were opposed to it; which became manifest even in Rome, as will be shown in the proper place.*

* A.D. 605.-At this time, Gregory the Great wrote, "If a bishop, whoever he be, is called a general bishop (that is, pope), the whole church decays." In Regist., lib. 8, cap. 188. Again: ' I candidly say that any one who calls himself a general bishop, or
Page 214
A. D. 606.-In this very year, in which the pope was accepted, by Phocas, as the head of the general Latin church, the celebrated teacher and Bishop Adrian publicly opposed infant baptism, wishing neither to baptize the children himself, nor to have them baptized, but utterly refusing them baptism; on account of which he was accused by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, to John, Bishop of Larissa, as appears from a certain letter sent by Gregory to John, in which, among other things, the following is contained, "The second article of the accusation against Bishop Adrian is this: that he refused baptism to infants, thus letting them die." Centur. Magd., Cent. 9, cap. 4, page 141, according to the account in Bapt. Hist., page 496, and H. Mont. Nietigh., page 80.
It appears, indeed, that this said Adrian was criminally punished for his views against infant baptism, and because he let the infants die unbaptized, as is stated by the ancients, and shall appear more fully in our account of the martyrs.*

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs027.htm

"Blessed are you when they shall reproach
you, and persecute you, and shall
say every evil word against you, lying, on
account of Me.
Rejoice and be exceeding joyful, for
your reward is great in Heaven; for in this
way they persecuted the prophets, the ones
before you." Mt. 5:11 & 12.

Praise His Holy Name!

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 6:06PM

Margie,

Do infants sin against Almighty God, or not? It is a very simple question.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 4:48PM

Margie,

"and showed as much sheer vile hatred for them as you and your perverted pals here show towards me"

How have I ever showed you any hatred? I always show you nothing but love. You, on the other hand? Not so much.

Your precious Martyrs Mirror is a complete contradiction. It attacks the Catholic Church and Her teachings, and, yet, praises men like Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus. Oh, and Origen, and his disciples. Remember what you said about Origen?

So, is it real history? Or, is only partial history? You certainly don't believe everything that's in it, do you? Only the anti-Catholic parts, right?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 3:44PM

Try reading?
I do read it, almost every day, along with the Bible.

You are the one who mocks it and spits on it and Christians, AND the Word of God, which you have tried to pervert along with the same Papists of old who tortured and killed my brethren who believed as I do. And you lie exactly as they do.
You have been taught another gospel, and believe it, and serve the same Father by so doing, the Devil.

Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Nick. You are following another gospel.

"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 6:13PM

Margie,

I do believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I share it with you constantly. And, I love sharing it as much as I love learning about it.

This the same Gospel that was past on to great Catholic saints, like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Papias. Men who were taught by the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John.

Anyone who thinks they know better than men who were taught by the Apostles, suffers from the sins of pride and arrogance.

"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Galatians 6:2-3
God Bless!

Papist Dan| 1.5.12 @ 8:22PM

IDIOT ALERT!!!!!IDIOT ALERT!!!!!

IdiotBigot Margie

I have the rights to the heading BIGOT ALERT!!!! and you are the only bigot so far. Your record is consistently one of bigoted, stupid anti catholic statments. There is no such record with the Chef.

I have reviewed Con Chef's comments and find no bigotry. He is using the phrase in the context of showing how absurd and bigoted the phrase Israel firster . You on the other hand are not capable of such subtle satire, nor are your statements subtle satire or irony.

You are still the site anti catholic bigot.

Don't try to deflect your bigotry on others. Try to remove your bigotry and you wont't be called a bigot.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 8:39PM

The Papist is found to be a hypocrite, for I have spoken the same words as he has concerning your "Just War Theory."

YOU just like it because your anti-Christ pal, Con Artist Chef takes pleasure in smearing me.

FRAUD.

Papist Dan| 1.5.12 @ 8:50PM

IdiotBigot Margie

You are obviously too stupid to understand my comment and the words "subtle" and "satire" and "context" and can only focus on a couple of words.

Do you really think anybody reads your cut and post? If you had a brain you would try to explain what you mean instead of posting something nobody will read. Or are you just a child wanting to waste space?

I take no pleasure in pointing out what a stupid bigot your are. You prove it with your comments and cut and paste.

It would be better for yourself and everyone here if you were not such a bigot. Try to behave.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:35PM

Just beacause I think that the "just war" theory is bullshit in no way equates to me hating all Catholics, as you so obviously do.

Papist Dan| 1.5.12 @ 10:48PM

The IdiotBigot Margie is just throwing sh-- against the wall desperately trying to deflect. Waste of time to attempt reason with her.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:58PM

PD:

Shoot me an email:

DTFrankel79@gmail.com

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:33PM

Interesting, How Many Of These Crybaby Israel Firster Smear Bund Neo-Chickenhawks Start Badmouthin' Castholicism, After They're Done Badmouthin' Muslims.

Con Job The Crybaby

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

The Tea Party Rebellion Spanks The Israel Firster Smear Bund Crybaby, Con Job.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 3:49PM

Note to Einstein Clint:

SPEAKING THE TRUTH ISN'T BAD MOUTHING.

Something you know nothing about~ speaking the truth.

mike| 1.5.12 @ 10:50PM

So Margie agrees with Clint. Interesting.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:07PM

He finished 3rd in Iowa, Clint. Is there a State in the Union that he will win? (I'm actually interested in your opinion, as our expert on all things Paul, including his underwear.) I don't think so. He's finished, as are you, son.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:21PM

One thing is obvious here. Con does not understand just war theory.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:36PM

There IS no such thing, idiot.

Dai Alanye| 1.5.12 @ 10:49AM

The Paulistas are relentless in their attacks on Americans who disagree with them but are willing to pre-emptively surrender to those who attack us from outside.

irish19| 1.5.12 @ 1:57PM

Right first time. A gold star for you.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:37PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:05PM

The Palestinians (learn to spell) ARE an invented people,. Please give me documentation on their existence prior to 1918. Any reference to Palestinians in, say, WWII literature referred to Palestinian JEWS, Jack.

The Iranians are attempting to get a bomb. It is obvious to anyone whose head is NOT made out of cheese.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.5.12 @ 7:02AM

Good summation.

All you forgot to mention is that when Bachmann dropped out there was no sound in the forest. The same will be true of Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman.

The Republican Party needs to move beyond using the government to determine someone's sexual destiny. That fight is over at the state level.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 7:07AM

Abortion and Gay marriage will never be right or healthy in any society. These arguments belong at the state level, not being decided by the Federal courts. The moral collapse in this country is far worse, then even the fiscal and foreign policy collapses.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:09AM

Abortion concerns another life, Eugenecist Jack. It IS the government's job to protect life. Don't you get that, Herr Jack?

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:41PM

Uh Oh !
The Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job Attempts To Play His Dog Eared Nazi Card Again.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 3:50PM

How is calling modern abortion policies, which were heavily influenced by Margaret Sanger, "playing the Nazi card" you idiot?

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:24PM

Constitutionally, Clint (and Paul) are correct. FedGov has no constitutional authority to engage in such domestic issues. Only things that are truly interstate, or actually have something to do with foreign relations, belong at the level of FedGov. Big Gov "conservatives" preach what you are preaching Con.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:39PM

If murder can be charged by the Feds in certain circumstances, then why not the murder of the unborn?

Look, man. If we leave it up to the individual states, then I happen to agree that would be the best course of action. However, the argument COULD be made that, since the government's basic job is to protect its citizens, abortion would be murder. Who speaks for the child?

spike59| 1.5.12 @ 7:07AM

Santorum is not going to go far; Romney's nomination, however one feels about the prospect, is all but inevitable. Sorry, Paulites, but there is no way that your Tinfoil Hat Messiah is going to overtake 'Mittens', nor should he, if the goal is to unseat Obama; Romney will face an extremely uphill, perhaps (but not necessarily) unwinnable battle. 'Ronpaul' would lose by the widest margin in American history; it is inevitable that the Obama campaign will seek to use charges of racism and homophobia against ANY GOP nominee; 'Ronpaul's' newsletters have given them a treasure trove of ammo. To the Paulite zealot, the 'spin' works. it always does with the 'true believers'...with the rest of the public, especially once Axelrod and the MSM turn their guns on the target? not so much. Campaigns are about perception; Paul's image is that of a nasty old crank and a wild-eyed wingnut conspiracy theorist; in addition, any slight inroads the GOP may have made in prying a slice of the Jewish, gay, and African-American vote from the Dems would EVAPORATE overnite with Paul as nominee. sorry to burst your bubble; but in a 'messiah vs messiah' contest, the OTHER phony messiah beats yours hands down, on the order of 15-20 percent in the popular vote, and an Electoral College SWEEP. Shame on the GOP for the quality of candidates this time around!

Tenn Slim| 1.5.12 @ 7:11AM

Iran?" It also has never attacked anyone in hundereds of years."
I guess you were not around during the Iran/Irag wars of some 10 years in the 1980s/
Your post is literally simply not true.
Full of historical and contemporary inaccuracies.
I suggest you get educated to the realities of FP.
bt
As to Santorums FP philosophy, one has to understand we live in a Islamic Jhadist world. Like it or not, the realities of this day are stark.
The Taliban, Al Qudea, Fundamentalist Hamas, Hezbollah and other like ilk, IE the Muslim Brotherhood, stand ready and willing to impose thier FP philosophies upon us.
Santorum may well be the Rock of Iron that this wayward country needs. A return to the Founders basic ideas, a moral choice for decency and normality is evident in his campaign.
We are REAPING RIGHT NOW what we have sown, what apathy has allowed to happen and we bloody well better get our collective US Electorate act together, or the future will be Statism, Leftist, and eventually a horror that even the most Naive poster cannot imagine.
Semper FI

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 7:31AM

Iraq attacked Iran at our instigation, and with our support. Saddam Hussian was our CIA butt boy for a long time. You the the ignorant fool here. Look it up moron. Iran is a peaceful country with no nuclear weapons program that has attacked no one in at least 200 years. Israel attacks or threatens to attack it's neighbors almost daily.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:11AM

Tell us the last time Israel attacked anyone without first being on the recieving end of incoming rocket fire or suicide bombings, Jihad Jack.

chuck| 1.5.12 @ 9:15AM

Peaceful, except for when they attacked our embassy, which under international law, is our sovereign territory. And the nutcase in charge there now? He was one of the leaders who held our diplomats hostage for 444 days. An act of war, no doubt about it. And any other President, probably even the Bamster, would have launched military attacks in response. Carter should have, and could have, nipped the Islamic revolution in Iran in the bud. Instead, he whined and cowered in the White House, and allowed this infection of the world community to take root.
And now Ron Paul says it is okay for Iran, led by this nut job who helped attack our embassy and hold our people hostage for 444 days, to obtain nuclear weapons. And Jack says, they are peaceful people, never mind the rhetoric about wiping the "Zionist-entity" off the map. And who cares that they plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador here in Washington. Or the funding and arming of terrorists groups around the world, or manufacturing and distributing the IEDs that killed so many of our soldiers in Iraq. Hell, they deserved that, didn't they Jack, because they shouldn't have been there anyway!

It's the Ron Paul Middle East Peace Plan:

NO MORE OF THEM DAMNED JEWS!

A vision that Jack and Clint fully support.

Mike D.| 1.5.12 @ 10:04AM

"Iran is a peaceful country with no nuclear weapons program that has attacked no one in at least 200 years"

Really? Not in at least 200 years?

Russo-Persian War, Campaign of 1826

Although there was no formal declaration of war, a 35,000-strong Persian army, led by Abbas Mirza, crossed the border on 16 July 1826 and invaded the Khanates of Talysh and Karabakh.

Uh, Herodotus, that would be lets see, oh about 186 years ago! If your going to throw "You the the ignorant fool here. Look it up moron" around on somebody else, then try it yourself first @sshole.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 3:15PM

Attack on and occupation of American embassy 1979. To say nothing of their declaration of war on US which we, until now, have mostly ignored.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:08PM

Thank you, Mike. Iran was the major player in "The Great Game."

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:27PM

Iraq attacked Iran, but not at our instigation. Saddam caught Iran at a vulnerable moment and attacke because he always wanted the Shab Al Arat (probably misspelled). We gave him some sat photography and that's about all the help he got from us. But certainly no encouragement to attack Iran.

Tina B| 1.5.12 @ 1:46PM

Amen, Slim.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 7:14AM

Uh Oh !

The Israel Firster Smear Bund Is In The Building.

They Are Setting Us Up For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

Who is this Cat, Mittens Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.

DevilDog| 1.5.12 @ 12:58PM

uh oh! clint the cowards firster is in the building. but then we knew he was hiding in the basement all along.

tell us clint, when the xfiles series ran out, did you complain to ron paul?

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:48PM

Uh Oh !
The Devil's Crack Coward Is In The Building,But Then We Knew He Was Hiding In Bibi's Basement All Along.

Tell Us Devil's Crack, When Your ADL MemberShip Was Turned Down, Did You Complain To Bibi ?

The Tea Party Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Girl, Devil's Crack.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:09PM

My thanks for your service, Devildog. Please apprise the ignorant cowardly punk Clint where your service was.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:48PM

By the way, my comments on the US funding the PLO (they do) should not be taken as criticism of you. Where Paul falls apart, as does Sirbourbon, is understanding the difference between aid to enemies and aid to friends. You get that in one. G-d Bless.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.12 @ 7:27AM

As many of you know, I prayed earnestly that Sarah would run.

I also felt that with Perry stepping in with a flourish, she seemed content to let him carry the cross.

...and let there be no doubt in anyone's mind...the general election will be a march up Calvary for any sincere Christian.

Believe it or not, Governor Perry joined the race out of his love for the country, and his executive credentials are in order.

Second, his family life has been in order long term.

If he is not a debater, (though lately he has improved), he is darned sure a "do-er" with proven results...long term.

I hope each of you will give him a second look.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 4:31PM

You "prayed earnestly"?

But you have NOT repnted of your bearing of false witness against me.

So, Reprobate: Where is the "proof" you claimed to have in the form of e mails that I wanted something to do with you in an Adulterous manner, hmmm?

Still waiting, liar.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 4:38PM

Then I'll bet He stopped listening to YOUR heretical ass a long time ago.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 4:46PM

Since you are an anti-christ according to 1 Jn. 2:22, you know nothing!

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 10:41PM

You're a charlatan. I worry not ONE BIT about your opinion of my soul. You ain't G*d, haint. Although you claim to speak for him since you've read the Bible. Its just too much fun to not make fun of your idiocy every chance I get.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 1:06AM

You're a lying little low life piece of work.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.12 @ 5:26PM

Hi Margie
(sigh) I will never put your secret e-mail up here. Heck, I understand you and Vic have to pull together to survive.
You two still need to have that long talk though.
God bless and forgive you

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 5:54PM

Ken:

You keep proving what a liar you are.
I have told you to post supposed e mail, and you previously claimed you had more than one as "proof."

So: Put up or shut up, asshole.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 6:02PM

Scratch that word, ass!@#$.
Replace with VILE man.

Rick| 1.5.12 @ 7:29AM

Ross: Stop the lies. In the "man on dog" article you reference, Santorum does NOT compare homosexual behavior to bestiality. He clearly states that the SCOTUS opinion striking down laws against homosexuality sets forth a principle of legal tolerance that will eventually make it impossible to uphold laws against bestiality or pedophilia. Santorum is right of course. You need to come to grips with where SCOTUS is going. Santorum is only the messenger. Why Bork him for delivering the message?

WillianInWien| 1.5.12 @ 7:32AM

The Iowa Results are on the same level as many of the so-called college bowl games: Small Audience, No One Really Cares and No Impact on the National Scene. Rick might drink a beer but he cannot smell the coffee!

Michael Tomlinson| 1.5.12 @ 7:43AM

Once they find out Santorum pulled a Ron "Soros" Paul (who eked out third thanks to his liberal/Democrat base of "last minute Republicans") and attacked Senator DeMint to defend earmarks South Carolina will crater his "momentum." Real Republicans and conservatives understand DC insiders and two-faced hypocrites like Earmark King Ron "Barack" Paul are the cause of out of control spending so Santorum defending it isn't going to go down well if issues really matter.

Good on Rick Perry for ignoring the useless pundits who've never won a political race, but "know" everything. There's a reason why Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself now.

Iowans proved how useless their caucus was when post-caucus they revealed they thought the other candidates like moderate Romney and liberal Ru Paul were more conservative than Perry who is the only successful and consistent small government conservative in the race (Newt is an erratic movement conservative and Santorum is a big government pro-labor union conservative).

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 8:00AM

Go Sit On Ricky Perry's Niggerhead Rock, Ricky Perry Cheerleader Captain, Little Micky.

Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The east Coast.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.5.12 @ 8:32AM

No Clint I'm an American Firster, Israel Seconder and "JUST SAY NO" to Muslim jihadist loving, liberal, cross-dressing Ru "Oprah" Paul.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:13AM

What? You don't support Stormfront's favorite candidate & Bradley Manning's biggest fan, Ron Paul?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 11:17AM

Clint needs a loooong vacation.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 11:54AM

Preferrably in an institution where they can put him on haladol & thorazine.

irish19| 1.5.12 @ 2:03PM

Preferrably in an institution where they can put him on more haladol & thorazine.
FIFY.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 4:09PM

Yeah, The Mick Should Know. He Put His Haladol & Thorazine In His Guinness.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:46PM

Clint: learn how to spell Haloperidol and Chlorpromazine. A man should know how to spell his medications.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 4:04PM

How Are They Treatin' Ya At The Western Pennsylvania Institute For The Criminaly Insane, Con Job.

I See They Let You Play With The Computer In The Day Room.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 4:01PM

Al Adab Needs A Loooong Education.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:58PM

Mitt Romney Responds to Question about Bradley Manning / War Crimes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtmGted3D0

Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Girl, Con Job.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 3:51PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

You're A Niggerhead Rock Cheerleader.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:12PM

You know Clint, that's awfully rude, even for you.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:11PM

Thank you, Mike. You have summarised my views precisely.

And Clint, putting in earmarks in a bill you know is going to pass and then voting against it is not an honest policy.

NedB| 1.5.12 @ 7:50AM

One thing most of the pundits seem to be missing is this. Romney won by 8 votes. He only won about 25% of the vote. The other 75% went to the Not Romney candidates.

As they are being winnowed down, more and more will go to the Not Romney candidate.

I suspect we might have a chance to see an actual brokered convention. (Odds low, but not as low as they should be)

If that happens, Who knows who might show up?

Michael Tomlinson| 1.5.12 @ 8:34AM

Governor Bobby Jindal.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 11:17AM

I'd take Mike Pence.

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 12:18PM

Unfortunately Jindal is not a" Natural Born Citizen" as required by the Constitution because his parents were not yet US citizens when he was born. Same with Marco Rubio.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 1:38PM

Either a parent must be citizen if born outside US OR person must be born in US. That is current state of the law. Hence Obie.

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 6:26PM

Person must be born in the US to US citizens to be considered "natural born." Jindal and Rubio are native born US citizens.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:32PM

Native born (Jindal, Rubio, Obama) is different than Natural born. Natural born requires two US citizen parents at the time of birth. The "where" is irrelevant.

W| 1.5.12 @ 8:34AM

Who needs Democrats when we have Republicans to attack our nominees.

It did not take long to start the attack on Rick. He is pro life and a too strong a Catholic and voted to help children.

It started last night on O'Reilly who spent nine of the ten minute interview lecturing Rick about how fair he, O'Reilly, is, and telling Rick he will be attacked for being pro life, for defending marriage between one man/one woman, and for gays in the military. Of course, O'R wasn't attacking Rick, just telling Rick those are the issues as O sees them. Poor Rick just smiled and tried to respond.

With the economy in a near depression, 15 trillion in debt, and Iran about to have nuclear weapons which will lead to another world war, it seems the real issues is gays in the military and gays marrying, and abortion. The President can't do much about abortion except appoint Supreme Court justices who MAY overturn Roe/Casey, but which will not happen absent a constituional amendment.

How about focusing on the economy, jobs and the debt? If we continue in debt the other issues will become irrelevant.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 10:28AM

As always, the GOP candidates are doing a wonderful job for the DEMS in killing each other offr. No wonder we lose time and again as only the tepid, mediocre seem to survive the process. Those with a past are destroyed and we are consistently left with only old time accomodationists such as Dole, McCain, etc. The Ford v. Reagan 1976 campaign is the classic study.

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 12:55PM

I was very disappointed with Rick by agreeing with the liberal OReilly that he will de-emphasize the social issues and concentrate on the economy -- like he cant do both. The social issues is one of the main reasons I would vote for Rick and already he is moving to the center; no wonder I never trusted this Arlen Specter supporter.

Rick had a tremendous chance to show OReilly how extremist his lefty social positions are but allowed himself to be steamrolled by this buffoon.

W| 1.5.12 @ 1:23PM

Rick couldn't get in a word and gave up, did you see him shrugging his shoulders?

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 1:55PM

Yes, but Newt (who I do not support) would have insisted to get his points across. And I believe Rick shrugged affirmatively and mumbled yes when OR asked him if he would downplay his social issues over the economy -- it was quick but that was my take. I would like to be wrong but given Rick’s previous (Specter) pro-life betrayal for political reasons it seems plausible

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 3:21PM

Why bother watching O'Reilly. The judge on the business channel is a far better interviewer.

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 6:27PM

Napolitano. Plus he's a lot smarter than O'Reilly.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:34PM

Alas, it doesn't take much to be more intelligent than O'Reilly. The man is a narcissistic buffoon.

But, it is quite true that the Judge makes O'Reilly look like a retard.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 8:56AM

Ross Kaminsky opines that the candidate to beat Obama has not yet been found. Oh really, sir?

Know yourself and know your enemy Sun Tzu wisely observed was a prerequisite to vanquishing your enemy. Speaking of enemies, another wise man spoke of enemies. He is the man most revered by Republican conservatives, so they claim, but take exception when it comes to His advice to "love your enemy." The scripture in Matthew 5 says to "pray for those who persecute you."
That statement must have seemed so irrational when He said it back then and Christians today still find it impossible to absorb that philosophy let alone practice it!

Hate is not a family value as the bumper sticker says. Hatred of others does more than block compassion for one’s enemy; it makes people incapable of discerning who their real enemy is. Haters end up attacking the very person who exemplifies the very ideals they claim to embrace. Ron Paul is the perfect example. But he is only the latest of a series of men in politics that have been irrationally hated. For hatred mucks up the human brain making it unable to process rational information and the hater ends up hating himself and his values.

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous....Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

This man asked people to seek perfection by loving friends and enemy alike! How some people hate to break old bad habits. It’s easier to hate.

"But perhaps most worrisome is Santorum's belief in nation-building. He suggested in a recent speech that the British Empire collapsed because they 'lost heart and faith in their heart in themselves and in their mission, who they were and what values they wanted to spread around the world.' ... then risk our sons' and daughters' lives and our nation's treasury spreading them across the globe."

Okay fine, I liked it as a correct assessment of not only Rick but of the entire GOP establishment. Yet isn’t it odd that the GOP will not admit more people in America hate war and want to get out of Afghanistan? Is the GOP leadership irrational or is there an Orwellian facet to the GOP embracing of hate-driven war and nation building at work here?

The question begging to be answered by your comment on nation building is which of the GOP candidates has been saying no "more nation building" throughout most of his career? No more unconstitutional wars and “NO MORE EMPIRE BUILDING?" is almost synonymous with doctor Paul. Yet you don't mention any of this in your column.

"But once there was even modest focus on Ron Paul's foreign policy views and his past writings (or the past writings of others that Ron Paul nominally edited), people were turned off."

Again, oh really? "Turned off" is not a correct assessment of the Iowa vote breakdown, it’s more a tuned in to Paul's message represented by his gathering better than 50% of the nonRepublican vote and a good chunk of the younger voter. Slice the baloney anyway you want but the fact is that independents and the younger voter were attracted to Paul's foreign policy message.

The standard line being fed to the GOP daily on radio and by Fox News: “Ron Paul is more liberal than Obama on foreign policy.” The tuned in listeners get this unholy gospel of lies from Rush, Hannity, Levine and Fox and friends repeatedly. How is a Christian Republican supposed to vote at a caucus when the choir preaches hatred about a guy who is the opposite of Santorum?

Paul is aa close as any of the other GOP field in preaching and practicing the advice offered to the earliest disciples of "the Word" to love your enemy? He doesn’t want to convert them or force them to love us with boycotts and bombs

That Rick Santorum is a big government conservative is a fact by his own "fruits you will know them" formula. We pray for his conversion from this love he has for boycotting and war making on Muslim countries simply based on an irrational fear of them created by eastern establishment think tankers and carried on airwaves by non-thinkers.

We can avoid repeating the same mistake of electing another big government Republican challenger to face off against the big government Democrat by nominating the man that has spent his entire career voting constitutionally. By his record we know him NOT to be a "nation builder" - Ron Paul.

Both major parties love to use hate-filled boycotts and war and nation build but America needs freedom from big government and war perpetuates big government. But if Paul is willing to face the hate aimed at him for sticking to his message on no nation building, I am willing to send him a few bucks and help him any other way I honorably can

The only true choice is to stand with the one that has gotten the message of the man from Galilee and is applying it- Paul.

If that "Iran may get the bomb" argument is keeping you at bay check this out from Israel's chief of the Mossad: http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ke-threat/

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 9:16AM

You cast YOUR vote for your neo Chamberlain, Stormfront favorite, Bradley Manning lauding candidate. You're no better than the fools who ignored Obama & "Rev." Wrong, Bill Ayers, Bernie Dorhn & Rashid Khalidi.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 12:52PM

Your reply is irrational since I did not vote for Obama.

Speaking of Bill Ayers and his wife. During their heyday these street thugs employed the same political tactics as the PLO . You may want to ask saintly Santorum about how much his votes for foreign aid ended up in the hands of the PLO heirs running the National Palestinian Authority. Ron Paul votes NO to all foreign aid because it is immoral, illegal constitution-wise and is counter-productive.

You use Chamberlain rather disingenuously to attack Ron Paul and his supporters but you leave out how Hitler rose to power. Tyrants don't rise to power without help from others. Hitler was a socialist and he and another socialist tyrant named Stalin teamed up to start wars (you know the aggrressive kind of wars to change people's political system) when they attacked Poland. I don't know if FDR is a hero of yours, but he is not mine, since he gave the USSR, Hitler's war partner, diplomatic recognition and set the stage for that tyrannical government to threaten the world with nuclear war.

You need to open up a history book and quit taking pots shots at Americans that want to restore constitutional government in America. The kind of government that will once again end unconstitutional and evil programs like foreign aid that help foreign tyrants.

The "fool" is he that learns NOTHING from history and it's obvious you've learned diddly squat about the lessons history teaches.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 2:20PM

I never said you voted for Obama. Re-read my post. I said you were like those who voted for him in your glossing over of his more dubious connections/associations.

"You use Chamberlain rather disingenuously to attack Ron Paul and his supporters but you leave out how Hitler rose to power."

If you don't like that one, then I suggest reading up on Demosthenes' Philippics. Tell me how Philip & Macedon aren't today's Iran.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 4:30PM

Glossing over Obama's connections? We were discussing Santorum's connections to the state education system and his votes for big government not about Barack Obama. Although Obama is also a big government supporter domestically and would never dream of abolishing the Department of Education. In that Santorum and the current president are allies. On the other hand Paul's platform wants the DOE to be beheaded! My heavenly God where is the sense in treating Obama as a "conservative" in foreign affairs when we all know that he is a socialist. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Hitler and Stalin were both domestically and internationally socialists. The were not split personalities but were consistent in their socialism regardless of where the policies were being formulated by his administrators to impliment. But it is silly to portray Obama as a leftist socialist at home but a rightist conservative abroad.

Let history illuminate us.
Read what John Q.Adams said about foreign affairs. Read what Jefferson and Washington said about minding our own business. They were constitutionally principled men and the epitomy of conservatism.

Paul follows that line of thinkers to have as much to do with nations that are friendly towards us but to keep the government down to a minimum. Wars leads to isolationism not to better and friendlier cultural relations,trade and other exchanges. Paul is the non-isolationist while Obama infuriates Muslims as did Bush did into fits of rage for intervening in their affairs, propping this dictator up and bringing another one down.
Paul asks: would we like it if the Chinese or any other nation came here to do what we are doing to them over there? I agree with Paul. And with this American president that stated in an address to congress: "She [the United States of America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Adams was not perfect but he saw the Greek versus Turks conflict as along war that we would not disengage ourselves from and ruin us economically.

Hitler and Stalin
These two interventionists started WWII when they attacked Poland. Would you consider them conservative in their foreign policy thinking?

Hitler took advantage of the nationalized healthcare system that was already in place in "united Germany" and then expanded that system into the death camps run by government staffed doctors. He moved into the German school system and formed the Hilter Youth movement. That component was one of his key programs for indoctrinating German youth into behaving like little human automatons for the Third Reich.

History teaches us to avoid socialized experimentation with medicine and education. From ancient Rome to Nazi Germany we no longer teach these lessons in the American public schools. Public school students knows little to nothing about this history let alone Demosthenes' Philippics.

Bill Ayers and Public schools
Ayers moved from the streets; from his role as a thug in the Weather underground into the public education system in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ature=plcp

Sadly Santorum thinks it is keen to double the Dept of education's budget. He is wrong to think the DOE is worth giving that failed socialistic bureaucracy one more dime let alone millions!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.5.12 @ 4:40PM

History DOES illuminte me. That's why I take the Philippics of both Demosthenes & Cicero very seriously. As should you.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:25PM

SirBourbon: Drink less, think more. Paul's foreign policy will kill a lot of Americans; far more than 15,000.

DevilDog| 1.5.12 @ 2:26PM

what foreign aid to the PLO?

care to provide the links?

or do you mean the aid to FIGHT the PLO!

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 4:58PM

Gladly!
www.thenewamerican.com
A Bad Investment
http://thenewamerican.com/inde.....xpY3kvODU3

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 5:01PM

More links for Devil dog>>>www.Israel National News.com
http://www.israelnationalnews......spx/143504

It is a fact that the US pays for a large share of UN opperations. US taxpayers also fund several UN sub-agencies that fund abortion and are involved in pushing socialism and buddying up with out and out terrorists. From UNRRA to UNESCO to UNICEF the UN is actually a subversive leach on our purse and sovereignty. Here in the article below we read that the UN is giving diplomatic sanction to an anti-Israel terror group>>
United Nations recognizes Hamas - supporting organization.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:44PM

My view is we should stop providing aid to the Egyptians and palestinians. Neither have fulfilled their obligations under treaty, unlike Israel.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:26PM

Gosh, we do provide foreign aid to the PLO. The difference, sirbourbon, is that the Israeli foreign aid gets spent on missile systems. The Palestinian foreign aid gets spent on terror or diverted to the Pali leader's pockets. NONE of it goes to help the Palis.

DevilDog| 1.5.12 @ 2:28PM

hitler teame dup with the ussr?

bwahahahahahahahahahaha

tell that to the germans who died on the eastern front.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 5:10PM

Do a goggle search for The Hitler Stalin Pact
or the Ribbentrop- Molotov treaty.

US communists that had been condemning Hitler were perplexed after the non aggression pact was signed by Germany's von Ribbentrop and Russia's Molotov.
This pact was an agreement officially titled the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union and signed in Moscow in August 1939. It was a non-aggression pact under which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany each pledged to remain neutral in the event that either nation were attacked by a third party. It remained in effect until 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

Organized thugs in Chicago made similar deals and broke them at their convenience.The international variety do come to terms but will cut each others' throat when the opportunity suits them.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:45PM

Sirbourbon: Paul would do nothing to Ayers or his evil wife because they are exactly alike on foreign policy. They are also rich, and so would nod their heads at his tax policies, as well. That's a minor issue to them compared to foreign policy and legalizing heroin.

Marco2| 1.5.12 @ 12:14PM

Dr Mengele as the man from Galilee, gotta' love it. The sooner you quacks are purged from legitmate political discourse, the better. Now that he's fading, I doubt Dr. M will get the deserved media enema. Too bad in a way, Americans need to see what comes out. Once they did, this circus would stop.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 1:05PM

I was not comparing Jesus to Ron Paul but making a point that Jesus taught us to "love your enemy." is that not a part of your Bible. Look up Saint Matthew chapter five and read his Sermon on the Mount.

Did you overlook Mr. Kaminsky's apt decription of Senator Santorum inso far as the senator's wild-eyed empire fantasies? In case you skipped over that part here it is:
" But perhaps most worrisome is Santorum's belief in nation-building. He suggested in a recent speech that the British Empire collapsed because they 'lost heart and faith in their heart in themselves and in their mission, who they were and what values they wanted to spread around the world.' Of course, he's the guy to make sure that we remember our values -- which is to say his values -- and then risk our sons' and daughters' lives and our nation's treasury spreading them across the globe."

That puts Rick closer to Dr.Mengle than just about anyone else on the planet except his cheerlearders . Are you a fanatic for Santorum? Only asking don't bomb me.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:27PM

Paul oves his enemy? Damn, could have surprised me. Paulbots have been trying to get my kids killed for years.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:43PM

Sorry: that's Paul LOVES his enemy. Oh well.

loulou| 1.5.12 @ 12:20PM

Sorry, but your post was way too long.
You must learn to be more concise or you risk being a bore.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 1:38PM

Thanks Loulou. I'll try to edit them down. But boring too? Look at the hits I got from my lengthy post.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:18PM

Yes, and all the explosions going off in Iran have no Israeli fingerprint.

Paul is worthless.

Quartermaster| 1.5.12 @ 7:38PM

As are the rest, alas.

sirbourbon| 1.6.12 @ 1:13AM

Ask the men and women that are now adults that Doctor Paul delivered into this world if they think Paul is "worthless." 4,000 babies this man delivered. How many babies have you delivered?

You people hate a man for his beliefs are mentally crippled. My God man, one would think that you live in Red China and you can't wait to start up the tanks to begin rolling over Ron Paul's college kids! You are so irrational I wonder if you won't have a coronary as Paul's numbers continue to climb. He is a doctor and you may want to consult him on your problem with freedom and your lust for bombing Iran. Those Iranians are the worse kind of people.Take a look at these terrible people in Teheran. They do look terrorizing don't they?>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Ward Bond| 1.5.12 @ 9:23AM

I don't think Romney would beat obama.We already have one Democrat running,we don't need two.And the crazy thing is the Republican Est. doesn't seem to care. Rove and the rest seem plenty happy to hold congress and maybe pick up in the senate.It's their own power and jobs they're concerned with.

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 3:17PM

Notice how giddy was about Romney's 8 vote victory. Sorry but Romney will not get our vote even against Obama. Its the GOP's fault for parading another worthless candidate not worth voting for.

The Big E| 1.5.12 @ 9:36AM

Ross,

Draw what conclusions you will from Iowa, but here is my conclusion:

A Mitt Romney nomination equals a Barack Obama re-election.

Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than the results in Iowa.

Consider the facts:

1. The country is in an awful mess and being led by an incompetent, corrupt Democrat administration which has no - repeat - NO positive record to run on.
2. The Republican base is more energized than ever, even forming the Tea Party movement to better organize and vent their frustrations - an act unprecedented in the history of Republican politics.
3. Democrat Party registration is down significantly because Barack Obama has driven more and more people away from the Democrat party.
4. Mitt Romney has been supposedly the "presumptive nominee" since before the election cycle began. He has campaigned almost continuously in Iowa since the last election - devoting millions of dollars and countless man-hours.
5. BUT - he garnered FEWER votes there this time than he did in 2008 (30,021 - 30,015) despite unprecedented coverage of the hotly contested campaign.

So what Mitt Romney effectively managed to do in the last four years of campaigning in the most anti-Democrat environment I can remember is turn off six more people than he did in 2008 - and that's a win? That's a candidate who's electable?

Are you kidding me?

The polls show consistently that while other candidates may rise and fall, when they fall, their support consistently goes to someone who is NOT Mitt Romney. Romney's poll numbers rarely rise above 25%. That's a candidate who's going to inspire the Republican base to go out and work day and night going door to door to get out the vote? Inspire Republicans to get to the polls regardless of the weather, or their health, or the demands of the their job or family?

How is a man who cannot even inspire support in his own base when it is highly energized supposed to inspire people outside his base to vote for him in a general election?

And yet, here you sit, just the latest in a line of writers on TAS, who seem to be determined to destroy ANY conservative competition for the nomination, telling us once again that we shouldn't even bother voting or having primaries because, well, Mitt Romney's a lock anyway because of his organization, and his money, etc. And you continue to beat that drum in the face of facts on the ground that demonstrate conclusively that what you claim to be true simply is not.

4 years, millions of dollars, countless man-hours - all for six FEWER votes than in 2008 - all for an EIGHT VOTE WIN over an ex-senator who got clobbered in his last race and who nobody even paid any attention to until just a few days ago.

And let's not forget this - Mitt Romney has run for public office 3 time prior to 2012 - and won exactly 1 election - 1 out of 3. In other words, he's won exactly one more election for public office than someone who's never run for office at all (such as, Herman Cain for example).

And THAT'S your inevitable candidate? Your most ELECTABLE candidate? Are you INSANE?

The surest way for Barack Obama to win re-election is for a third party candidate to emerge out of the Republican party due to dissatisfaction among Republican voters with the nominee - and anywhere from 75% of Republicans want someone - ANYONE - other than Mitt Romney. Many of those people are fed up with having to accept candidates like Mitt Romney election after election, and they have now come to realize that THEY are the majority in the Republican Party, and that the nominee should reflect THEIR views and interests, not the views an interests of a self-appointed internal elite. Those people have been talking about the prospect of the third party candidacy for a couple of years, and a Mitt Romney nomination would only drive them further toward that disastrous conclusion.

If the Republican party nominates Mitt Romney, it is flirting with disaster, pure and simple. It will have a nominee it's base will not accept, it will be risking a third party challenge, and it will be driving people out of the party.

A Mitt Romney nomination will be the end of the Republican Party.

Simon Templar| 1.5.12 @ 9:40AM

Kaminsky, I beginning to really dislike you. Go back to Wall Street and advance your portfolios. You are a waste of space and you have nothing of value to offer here. It is getting old fast.

Just what is conservative about you and some of your pals here like Quin? You are certainly not the journalist nor political analyst that you pretend to be. You are political hacks pretending to be political analyst.

You are not even a good political hack. I am guessing your just another self absorbed, immature libertarian at best who pretends to be a conservative or at worst just another self absorbed, moderate beltway republican hack.

I am not going to bother as I usually do with a more intellectual and substantive response to your diatribe on Santorum. It would be a waste of time as you are hopeless and have no ears to listen.

Go write another article about how bad Obama is and pick up your check. There will be more checks in the next four years and more whining articles and pretense to get you that new house and new golf clubs.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:29PM

I would prefer any Republican nominee to Romney EXCEPT Paul.

I would prefer Romney to Obama.

Paul will not win, so my worst nightmare will not come true.

Just to clarify.

steve b| 1.5.12 @ 9:46AM

Barak Obama is a radical left wing,America hating socialist.Can't some of you morons see that! WAKE UP!

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 1:08PM

and so is Santorum, Mitt and Newt. So your point is that Republicans make better socialists?

Ward Bond| 1.5.12 @ 9:48AM

The Big E, you are absolutely correct. And even if Romney should win what would an ineffectual term give us, another shot for obama?

Cesar Viana| 1.5.12 @ 9:57AM

I guess you dont like Santorum

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 10:06AM

Rick Santorum’s anti-China rhetoric should be rephrased his pro-American rhetoric -- this is a big plus for him not a negative.

Although there is much I do not like about Rick’s previous big government record under Bush and his low Numbers USA immigration rating I would reluctantly vote for him over Obama, but only if Rush and company pledge to the base to severely criticize a president Santorum if he veers left instead of letting him skate like they did for Bush over 8 years.

McCain’s endorsement of Romney is the kiss of death in the South and after South Carolina Perry will drop out and the anti-Romney vote pie is larger. And if Newt drops out along the way Santorum wins. One caveat – conservatives may turn away from Santorum too once his real voting record is exposed.

sirbourbon| 1.5.12 @ 1:31PM

This is an amazing post! If Limbaugh pledges to do what?

Is it not better to dismantle the Department of Education as the GOP still claims it wants to do? However, only Ron Paul puts that in his platform.

The DOE has poisoned the minds of millions of school children. The DOE crats have conditioned the minds of millions of kids to look up to the government as their god. I've listened to Limbaugh but have yet to hear him tell his listeners to call their congressman to abolish the DOE.

Rush made his millions and thenhe toned his rhetoric down once Bush got him convinced that "compassionate conservatism" is a good thing for America. $3.6 TRILLIONS, a new federal cabinet department and thousands of more bureaucrats later, Rush has yet to call for abolishing the DHS.

Take your pick: localpolice departments or a national police force under DHS. Hitler had his national police force. The GESTAPO was the acronym. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 2:13PM

Rush and talk radio have tremendous influence on the conservative base and they could have pushed GWB to the right from the get go -- starting at Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind fiasco. But no-- because he was a Republican they carried Bush’s liberal water for 8 years and in the process we lost both Houses, have a RINO Senate and now Obama.

I fear the same tepid response from the talk radio pundits if Santorum, who is almost identical to Bush, gets elected and veers left. I would like Rush and company to make a pledge not to repeat this betrayal of conservatism whoever the Republican nominee is.

I like some of Ron Paul’s domestic agenda and I do not like the DOE but his foreign policy is to the left of Obama. We live in a dangerous world -- appeasement and weakness it what led to World War II and millions of dead Americans.

bill| 1.5.12 @ 10:07AM

Since 1980, SC always picks the GOP nominee. Here's what will happen in NH, SC, and FL.

Romney: won IA and will grab NH, but he 'll have trouble explaining his stance on abortion, gay marriage, healthcare to SC conservative voters. He'll lose SC and will be on the limb.

Santorum: surged in IA and will do horrible in NH. He may have some clout in SC because of his social conservative credentials, but his fiscal policy is outdated, and that will turn down so many voters, during Obama recession. He cannot win SC.

Ron Paul: going nowhere with his "reckless" foreign policy in SC.

Gingrich: lost IA and will lose NH, and his stance on healthcare, funding abortion will irk SC voters, although he is from neighboring GA, will lose SC.

Rick Perry: lost IA and NH, SO WHAT! SC voters are thrilled with his charisma, leadership, and his stance on fiscal and social policy, he will rebound and revive his campaign, and crush "front-runner" Romney and Santroum, winning SC, followed by the victory in FL.

The ultimate GOP nominee: Rick Perry

Marco2| 1.5.12 @ 12:19PM

When Ricky learns all the numbers of his fingers AND TOES, let's talk. It's quite a hurdle, I know, but by 2016 all things are possible.

irish19| 1.5.12 @ 2:10PM

I bet Perry knows how many states there are and what language they speak in Austria.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:31PM

Bill: from your mouth to G-d's ears. His VEEP Marco Rubio, will have to debate Obama, though.

George S| 1.5.12 @ 10:11AM

What is it about women and independents that send them running from a candidate? Is it a coincidence that the decline of this country started during the Progressive Era which gave us the 19th Amendment? Could one have occurred without the other?

Farmer| 1.5.12 @ 10:18AM

Personally I’m in the “anybody but” Obama camp. I find it interesting that Kaminsky repeats Tanner’s complaint that Santorum promotes “economic-literacy programs in 'every school in America' [italics in original]." While I am generally not in favor of Federal mandates on education, it might be useful if youth in America learned something of basic economics. Currently many young people seem clueless about where economic illiteracy is leading them and the country.

Bob K.| 1.5.12 @ 10:39AM

What do the readers of this article think of Ross's implication that the presidential candidates should be Pro-Chinese?

How will this help America?

See the top of page 3 of this article for specifics where Romney is criticized for Anti-Chinese rhetoric along with Santorum and Trump.

Do you think this should be played up by the candidates or do you think Anti Chinese rhetoric during the campaign will be more acceptable to the voting public?

Nixon went to China. Kissinger is still making money off China and the Clinton's made a fortune from them selling our Military secrets.

How does Ron Paul view this issue? Chime in here, if you please, Clint and Jack from Wisconsin. Is China a bigger danger to the USA than Islam is?

What is Israel's position here Occam?

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 12:29PM

All the Wall Street libertarian money players are pro-communist China instead of pro-America. Trump is dead right in saying we are rebuilding China both economically and militarily while destroying America; yet this suicidal insanity is now part of the conservative doctrine -- we are losing it.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:55PM

what is it about protectionists that allow them to claim (apparently with a straight face) that my opposition to trade wars and tariffs makes me "pro-Chinese?" Those policies would be exceptionally damaging to America.

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 4:23PM

America is sinking big time because we have given our industrial might and vital technology to communist China and other foreign powers via the corrupt WTO and US government. This weakens us both economically and militarily. We won WW II because of our industrial strength – now I doubt if we make our own bullets.

Why do you think we no longer have many good paying jobs in the USA? Connect the dots – it’s easy.

Bob K.| 1.5.12 @ 6:48PM

I think that Santorum made it clear in the link you posted at the top of page 3 that he did not want a trade war with China. One does not have to be a Protectionist to see the value of the use of our economic power to encourage China to open up it's society. There is nothing "naive" about keeping this option open.

For example, there has been a disconnect in our foreign policy on this matter when it comes to China.

We have no problems calling for sanctions and even armed intervention to "build" democracy and "expand" freedom in the Muslim world but the mere mention the use of sanctions against China to "encourage" them to extend more democracy and freedoms to their peoples makes our Wall Street Leaders; Republicans and Democrats both, hold up their hands in horror warning America about all the damage this could cause to our country!

Kade| 1.5.12 @ 7:39PM

We already have a trade war with China and they are winning big time because we are giving a lawless dictatorship our ability to make things and the engineering that follows.

This so-called free trade is really a form of socialism on the International stage but has even more dire consequences, since we are transferring our wealth and industrial capacity to poorer countries for slave labor -- but then we gradually lose our ability to produce goods, which is the engine of robust economic growth and a thriving middle class.

We are being sold down the river by big corporations and bought-off politicians of both Parties and that is why China is a rising superpower and America is a declining superpower. It really is not that hard to understand.

BackToBasics| 1.6.12 @ 12:23AM

Good comments. You've said a lot in a concise way. From your post - " It really is not that hard to understand."

One would think so. It sure makes me question just how smart many in DC are.

These days if an "average Joe" says he could be president one should not immediately dismiss him as suffering from "delusions of grandeur." He might actually be worth considering when taking stock of what we've had for many years now from both parties.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:36PM

How the hell would I know Israel's position? They will side with the US, as they do with anything not directly related to their survival.

What should the US position that Israel will comply with be? China needs to be managed and opposed skilfully without armed conflict until its population problem results in its implosion, which will be 20-30 years away. they are already feeling the signs, Their population base is an inverted pyramid. They are in deep trouble, with a thin modernised leaven on top of poor peasants.

China is NOT a bigger danger than Islam is, because Islam is growing with a HUGE youth movement and no restrictions on kids. Youth plus will=long term military vitality. Islam is also much richer at the top than China. And that's my 20-30 year projection.

Finally, China doesn't hate us like Islam does. Compromise is possible with China, especially as it grows older; but not Islam.

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:38PM

Incidentally, I have never seen an AIPAC letter that has mentioned China other than as an arms supplier for, say, Iran. It doesn't enter into the equation except indirectly. Like I said, Israel will follow US directives on this, except where their survival is directly threatened.

Bob K.| 1.5.12 @ 11:58PM

Spengler, the current one, agrees with you on China but he also assigns the same fate to Islam for the same reason.

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=17512

Meanwhile Pepe ignores it all declaring that the globalized world is dissolving into liquid war.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 10:46AM

You do know that Santorum will not gather enough signature to be on at least a half dozen states coming up soon don't you?

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 3:12PM

Yep, he is toast. Why not just anoint Obama now, because Romney finished 3rd to the loser Mc Cain in 2008. So he has NO CHANCE against Obama.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 10:53AM

I loathe Ron Paul. But if he is the GOP nominee he will get my vote as will any of the others. Kaminsky, you are part of the problem: There is NO ideal candidate, contrary to what one of the Paul supporters tries to lay out above. The man has passed one piece of legislation out of over 600 proposed. Give me a freaking break that he is the best. No better or worse(aside from his insane stance on the Mideast and legalizing drugs) than the others. Keep driving yourself crazy trying to find that perfect being. They ain't there.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:56PM

Are you suggesting that I think Ron Paul is a good idea?

I didn't say there is a perfect candidate, and I am not focused on perfection. I'm focused on beating Obama.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 11:37AM

Perry won't win in the NE, Midwest, or West. That will be Romney country.

Jeremiah| 1.5.12 @ 12:03PM

For any supporter of Romney to call another Republican a "big government" conservative is laughable.

I passed over the presidential race in '08 as I am not interested in choosing between flavors of statists. I will do the same if Romney is the nominee. I really do not think you establishment types understand that there are many of us who will no longer behave like house-trained conservatives who will surrender all principle and treat elections as a contest over who should manage leviathan.

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 3:10PM

Here, Here.
We have had the "moderate" Republican candidate every election since Romney because they were the most electable candidate and all it has gotten us is 15 trillion in debt and 100,000 new laws.

Joe D.| 1.5.12 @ 12:51PM

Ross, we do not care about your friends, with no morals, betting odds. Romney will not win. He is an idiot moderate/liberal. We don't want him and we will not vote for him.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:57PM

Joe, if you didn't care, you wouldn't read the article.

I'll bet you a beer that Romney wins.

bill| 1.5.12 @ 12:58PM

If Romney wins the GOP nod, Obama will be shoe-in for another 4 years. Because both are liberals.

Anthony| 1.5.12 @ 2:40PM

Do I have this right, Ross? In 08 we nominated a loser R who spent most of his time sabotoging the Bush agenda and playing nice nice with Obozo during the campaign, yet we cannot win with Santorum who supported his president's agenda while in the senate?
You guys in the media, please, take a walk and leave us to our peace.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:58PM

Anthony,

I did not support or vote for McCain.

And yes, I say we cannot win with Santorum.

As for "take a walk", didn't you come to me (or my writing) rather than the other way around?

Anthony| 1.5.12 @ 4:19PM

Ross,
I did not say, nor did I suggest, that you supported McCain, although, you sat 08 out, a luxuory many of us passed on for the sake of this country.
You are entitled to your opinion on Santorum. I see in another post you found him to be santimonious. Wow, now there's a rarity in a politician. Something tells me Santorum has earned his santimoniousness by living the life he shows the public, as opposed to the stable of D whores and hypocrites who do just the opposite.
Lastly, I apologize for my intemporate comment about taking a walk. I'm really up to here with all our candidate bashing. I want to see some serious Obozo bashing!!!
At least you're man enough to enter the arena and face us barbarians.

Tina B| 1.5.12 @ 6:20PM

Anthony, the word is sanctimonious. And I tend to agree with you, especially about the rest of the clowns in the opposition party.

But if Santorum drinks beer and even publicly calls himself a beer connoisseur, I think he is probably not sanctimonious. Just prudent, decent and hopefully a committed Christian, all the while under the RC umbrella.

Fortunately for me, and maybe some others here, Christ said that God reads the heart, and not the religious background application so many humans seem to want to examine so closely.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 6:51PM

"But if Santorum drinks beer and even publicly calls himself a beer connoisseur, I think he is probably not sanctimonious."

Is abstaining from drinking alcohol your definition of sanctimonious?

"But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My Master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken, the Master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect Him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." Mt. 24:48-51.

Tina B| 1.5.12 @ 9:21PM

Hi Margie,
"Is abstaining from drinking alcohol your definition of sanctimonious?"
No, I just meant if Santorum calls himself a 'beer connoisseur,' he can't also be calling himself 'holier than thou' as Ross K says in his response to Anthony. No one who admits to loving fine beers dares to say he is holier than all those who judge sanctity by the non-consumption of all alcoholic beverages. Having been a severe abuser of alcohol, and regretting it greatly, Ihave grown to hate drunkenness, but I don't confuse that with enjoying a fine brew.

I think in terms of holiness or sanctification, not sanctimoniousness, which is a form of pride, I think. And since Christ admonishes us to be holy, and God is a holy God, I know to draw near to Him more each day.

I hope all is well with you, my friend, and wish you a strong 2012, in Him.

Margie| 1.5.12 @ 7:31PM

p.s. Tina,

Maybe they just want to do the will of their Heavenly Father:

"For this reason, do not become foolish,
but understanding what the will of the
Lord is.
And “do not be drunk with wine,” in
which is debauchery, but be filled by the
Spirit, Prov. 23:31
speaking to yourselves in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
psalming in your heart to the Lord,
giving thanks at all times for all things
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, even
to God the Father,
subjecting ourselves to one another
in the fear of God." Eph. 5:17-21.

Papist Dan| 1.5.12 @ 8:53PM

IdiotBigotMargie

I bet your husband drinks or wants to drink.

Joe D.| 1.5.12 @ 2:53PM

"Furthermore, there is little in Santorum's flinty, holier-than-thou personality to make one think he will handle criticism well." Santorum "seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance" on social issues, a style that "will be far less well received" outside of Iowa.

- Ross why don't you say sactomonious as well. I am sure you can hit Catholics and other Christians below the belt better than that?

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 3:58PM

I'm not anti-Catholic or anti-Christian.

I have met Santorum and did not enjoy my conversation with him. He is indeed sanctimonious.

Tina B| 1.5.12 @ 6:28PM

If he seemed that way to you, Ross, it does not mean he necessarily is sanctimonious. Maybe you are a secularist, and even dislike the religious people in your world.

If Rick seems holier than thou to you, maybe he really is. Do you work at being holy? I do. I am far from holy, but I sure hope that one year from now, I am holier than I am today. I am trying to grow in holiness.

It's a tough road, and I am plodding along, with my Savior is helping me in the battle, as He promised, through His Holy Spirit. But I guess it's all in how you define holy. And if you even want to be holy in the first place.

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 3:06PM

Well American Spectator has convinced me that their is NOBODY worth voting for.
I can now see why I cant vote for Santorum.
Because of imigration I can not for Perry. Because Cain may have had sex with white women I can not vote for Cain. Because Bachmann may not have an IQ of 140 I can not vote for her. Because the Eastern Establishment hates Palin I can not vote for her. Because Paul does not support killing US citizens abroad I can not vote for him. Because Newt is hated by the GOP establishment I can't vote for him.
Gees, that leaves only the default candidate Romney, and I know he supports Cap and Trade, ObamaCare (a version of RomneyCare), abortion, Big government (for GOP cronies), I can't vote for him.
So I guess I must just sit out 2012 and accept the inevitable Obama victory.

Jack in Wi.| 1.5.12 @ 3:36PM

Good comment Wayne. A very good use use of wry humor. Obama is going to win because the party is fractured. It has to be rebuilt and the countryclubbers and neocons driven out. If someone like Romney is elected there will be no opposition. It is better that the country collapse under Obama. Then we can rebuild from the ashes. Romney would only be more of the same. The differences between him and Obama are about as thin as a sheet of toilet paper.

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 4:04PM

I'm not a huge fan of Romney but he has a big plus of being the only GOP candidate to poll ahead of Obama recently and with some consistency.

Separately, given his repeated promises to defang and try to repeal Obamacare and his statements against abortion, cap-and-trade, and big government, it seems that your fundamental position is that you think Mitt Romney is a liar.

It's obviously up to your own judgment to determine such things, but you should have the honesty to say so when you're claiming the candidate has positions which are the opposite of the ones he claims to hold (even though he clearly had some different views in the past.)

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 5:18PM

Well a few things. Polls change and not many people even know who Romney is, and form their opinions based upon what the media tells us, and lets face it, the media has not tried to tear up Romney like they have Cain or Palin. So when I see your article I have to think you are just part of the media.
Ever hear about politicians breaking their promises? Romney also promised us that he would work with Democrats. So what are the odds that he will form a nice coalition with Democrats and "moderate" Republicans against the conservative Tea Party? I would say that it is pretty good. That would make us worse off that with Obama. He won't work with anyone except Scott Brown and Democrats.

de reichenbach| 1.5.12 @ 3:28PM

Another article by a Mitt cheerleader. Yawn.
Go Rick Perry!

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 3:31PM

This isn't 2008. It is 2012, the deficit has TRIPLED under Obama to 14 trillion dollars, and he has a 3.5 year record of inflicting pain on the American people. Add that to the diminishing 401 k and ira returns and Obama is toast to Romney and anyone else. Hell, yes, I will vote for Romney. I would vote for Sgt. Bilko over him.

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 5:21PM

Actually 15+, but Bush also spent like an Irish Sailor. Between the two of them we are screwed.

Crawler| 1.5.12 @ 3:48PM

Personally, I could not care less who the “Rs” nominate to oppose Barack Hussein Obama, his progressive minions and his infected political party. The RNC knew who their man was months ago. All we’re seeing now (caucuses, primaries and polls) is just an RNC dog and pony show for the masses.

I don’t care if the “R” guy is religious, non-religious, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, has twelve toes or eats moon pies for breakfast; just as long as Obama and his soon-to-be insignificant party are forced to watch from the bleachers to see just how disgusted the majority of voting Americans are with them, their unconstitutional mandates, their fiscal irresponsibility and their total incompetence and blatant arrogance.

Hell, put an “R” on Ronald McDonald’s clown suit and I’ll vote for him over Obama…

Ross Kaminsky| 1.5.12 @ 4:06PM

That's where I am, too. Those commenters here who pigeon-hole me as a Romney cheerleader simply have it wrong. I have not endorsed Romney nor contributed to his campaign -- despite having close friends here in Colorado who are strong supporters of Romney.

There are quite a few policy positions I don't like about Romney.

That said, I think that calling him a liberal is way off base. Even "moderate" is probably not fair to the guy, his past positions notwithstanding.

Also, I would hope that a more conservative Congress would push him to the right, something we didn't see under Bush.

Wayne| 1.5.12 @ 5:22PM

But you said that those looking for anyone but Romney need to give up. That means you gave up and now support Romney. You can not have it both ways.

RonL| 1.5.12 @ 4:37PM

I don't care about investors. I care about candidates' records and their stands on the issues.

Rick Santorum will win the South Carolina primary, and his momentum will grow.

Bob | 1.5.12 @ 4:54PM

If we had a candidate as smart as the writer of this article thinks he is, Obama would not stand a chance in 2012.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 5:24PM

I think ALL of us had better worry where we will be with ANYONE in the White House this time next year with those ICBM bases in Venezuela that Iran will share in.

Al Adab| 1.5.12 @ 5:34PM

...and this time (unlike Cuba) we bow instead of watching the other guy blink.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 5:55PM

I just had someone on FB tell me to "play it cool" in regards to that. Play it cool, my ass. Would Ronald Reagan have played this cool? I guarantee the Paulistas that Israel knows exactly how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon. And what can you say about Chavez and his two pals from Iran and the U.S. GOD HELP US!!!

Occam's Tool| 1.5.12 @ 6:42PM

Dear Somnolence: he will help us. Neither Romney nor Santorum will put up with that crap. Santorum would be better as he will hit harder.

Did I wish you Happy New Year? I should. You write intelligently and well.

somnolence| 1.5.12 @ 7:08PM

Thank you, O.T. I agree with your opinion. Happy New Year.

POST American| 1.5.12 @ 9:24PM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

"---There was without question
widespread voter fraud in Iowa."
-BEV HARRIS
(Director Blackbox Voting)

ALEX JONES ---yesterday.

AGAIN, ---it really is TREASON.

REALLY

Tina B| 1.5.12 @ 9:25PM

I think both of you, OT and Somnolence, are on the side of the good guys. God bless the USA in 2012 and until He comes back to get us.

BackToBasics| 1.5.12 @ 11:49PM

From RK's article - "The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner wrote on Wednesday that Santorum is a "big-government conservative" and that the former senator's record "should give supporters of limited government considerable pause."

What is the motive behind such as statement? Does it really betray wariness of a strong social conservative? Just asking. Since there is really no such thing as a "big-government conservative" the following almost identical statement actually makes more sense for Romney than it does for Santorum.

"The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner wrote on Wednesday that ROMNEY is a "big-government conservative" and that the former GOVERNOR'S record "should give supporters of limited government considerable pause."

BackToBasics| 1.6.12 @ 12:04AM

My question really should be, "What is the motive behind such as statement or in citing it?"

sirbourbon| 1.6.12 @ 1:44AM

"Motive?" It's called vetting the bastards and ignoring the boobs that whine like spoiled brats for anyone daring to expose the frauds that these chumps like saintly santorum really are.

Grow a pair and stand up for principle.

Why side with these incipient phony politicians that waste and spend and create regulations that are killing this country? There's no reason for doing an irrational thing like supporting a RINO. Look at Scott Brown. The TP laid a big fat goose egg by backing that idiot GOP liberal.

Ignoring their votes for big government is irrational behavior.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 8:22AM

"Motive?" It's called vetting the bastards and ignoring the boobs that whine like spoiled brats for anyone daring to expose the frauds that these chumps like saintly santorum really are.

Grow a pair and stand up for principle."

Sounds kinda like some Ron Paul supporters. I give you Clint & Jack as perfect examples.

BackToBasics| 1.6.12 @ 9:53PM

sirbourbon missed my point as well.

BackToBasics| 1.7.12 @ 12:02AM

My point was that RINO's alway make statements like the one I quoted regarding every candidate except Romney when most often the shoe fits even better than it does for the other candidate, in this case Santorum.

Look at is as a comparison of degree and not that I am endorsing either candidate.

And why don't you grow a pair and answer my post directly through a reply.

George Collins| 1.6.12 @ 4:31PM

Huntsman and Romney are related through the Pratt family of Utah, by the way.
Kaminsky has an interesting perspective, but I think he's underestimating the dissatisfaction most Republicans have with Romney. Paul is a likeable kook, but lost in the various diatribes attached to this article is the pathetic record of President Obama, which should be easy for the nominee to run against.

POST American| 1.6.12 @ 10:38PM

-------------------FINAL WORD P.S.--------------------

BTW --one and all --CATCH THIS!

Seems the capstone creeps have moved
beyond fertility destroying, cancer
engendering Bisphenol A in processed
foods, plastics, cans, bottles ---beer.

--Beyond!

It's now come out that they're ALSO
saturating you and your enviornment
with this via dyes, inks (--esp. printer
ink) ---and papers ---all kinds of paper
---and most effectively ----TOILET
PAPER!

---Gets it right in the old membrane!
--right into the bloodstream!

------------------------YESSIRREEE

SO, do monitor those estrogen levels
while you gut up for the fight with Globalism
and capstone EUGENICS.

--EUGENICS is the creepiest of TREASON OPS---

The deliberate tainting of the food chain,
water, air or meds -----MUST get the DEATH
penalty.

GET THE WORD OUT TO EVERYONE

-------------------------------------------REALLY