Apostolic candidate for Congress (TV Ad)

[Esaias]

I'm sure the guy means well. But then so do most liberals.

I don't understand why anyone still thinks "voting" is anything other than a completely untrustworthy scam? There is simply zero reason whatsoever to think public voting has any actual effect on anything other than maybe who's gonna be dog catcher in a rural community? Any election that uses voting machines is completely untrustworthy and unverifiable.

[returnman]

The gun thing was kind of cheesy but will make me remember. Good supportive wife however and kind of thing to drive a Femi-nazi insane.

[Esaias]

NATIONAL SECURITY
This is the first priority of the federal government, and I embrace the T.R. Roosevelt doctrine of “walk softly but carry a big stick.” Our allies must trust us and our enemies fear us. I will advocate for funding the world’s strongest, most well-equipped military with an updated mission of guarding our borders.

...

“President Trump is in the fight of his life for re-election, and we need conservatives across Florida and America to get out to vote,” said candidate Ryan Chamberlin. “But his re-election means nothing if we do not have conservatives in charge of Congress. We must once again control all three branches of government if we are to pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity.”

From https://ryanchamberlin.com

1. He says the number 1 priority of the federal government is national security. The Declaration of Independence however says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

America was founded on the idea that the number 1 priority of government was to secure the RIGHTS of the people, not "national security" - which is just another way of saying State Security. Mr Chamberlin is politically opposed to the fundamental tenet of Americanism and the basic foundational premise of the American Revolution. Thus he is politically UNAMERICAN and is a counterrevolutionary.

Further, the American Founders deplored a standing professional military. Several states explicitly denounce standing militaries in their state constitutions. Mr Chamberlin is a neocon Military-Industrial statist, not a pro-American champion of freedom and liberty.

Moreover, as a professing Christian, he is committing treason against the King, Jesus Christ, who in His Word has declared the primary duty of government is to submit to Christ, punish evil, and reward good - ie to OBEY GOD AS AN EXPLICITLY CHRISTIAN BIBLE-DIRECTED INSTITUTION.

2. He argues that if Republicans control the House, Senate, and the Executive, they will "pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity." Yet the Republicans HAVE been in control of both the Executive and the Congress before, and have accomplished exactly zilch. Anyone with two brain cells can see that so it is obvious he is a typical pandering lying party-hack politician.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

NATIONAL SECURITY
This is the first priority of the federal government, and I embrace the T.R. Roosevelt doctrine of “walk softly but carry a big stick.” Our allies must trust us and our enemies fear us. I will advocate for funding the world’s strongest, most well-equipped military with an updated mission of guarding our borders.

...

“President Trump is in the fight of his life for re-election, and we need conservatives across Florida and America to get out to vote,” said candidate Ryan Chamberlin. “But his re-election means nothing if we do not have conservatives in charge of Congress. We must once again control all three branches of government if we are to pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity.”

From https://ryanchamberlin.com

1. He says the number 1 priority of the federal government is national security. The Declaration of Independence however says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

America was founded on the idea that the number 1 priority of government was to secure the RIGHTS of the people, not "national security" - which is just another way of saying State Security. Mr Chamberlin is politically opposed to the fundamental tenet of Americanism and the basic foundational premise of the American Revolution. Thus he is politically UNAMERICAN and is a counterrevolutionary.

Further, the American Founders deplored a standing professional military. Several states explicitly denounce standing militaries in their state constitutions. Mr Chamberlin is a neocon Military-Industrial statist, not a pro-American champion of freedom and liberty.

Moreover, as a professing Christian, he is committing treason against the King, Jesus Christ, who in His Word has declared the primary duty of government is to submit to Christ, punish evil, and reward good - ie to OBEY GOD AS AN EXPLICITLY CHRISTIAN BIBLE-DIRECTED INSTITUTION.

2. He argues that if Republicans control the House, Senate, and the Executive, they will "pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity." Yet the Republicans HAVE been in control of both the Executive and the Congress before, and have accomplished exactly zilch. Anyone with two brain cells can see that so it is obvious he is a typical pandering lying party-hack politician.

Just another person wanting position and power.
Great men are seldom good men.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

NATIONAL SECURITY
This is the first priority of the federal government, and I embrace the T.R. Roosevelt doctrine of “walk softly but carry a big stick.” Our allies must trust us and our enemies fear us. I will advocate for funding the world’s strongest, most well-equipped military with an updated mission of guarding our borders.

...

“President Trump is in the fight of his life for re-election, and we need conservatives across Florida and America to get out to vote,” said candidate Ryan Chamberlin. “But his re-election means nothing if we do not have conservatives in charge of Congress. We must once again control all three branches of government if we are to pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity.”

From https://ryanchamberlin.com

Just gonna keep this here for reference.

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. He says the number 1 priority of the federal government is national security. The Declaration of Independence however says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

America was founded on the idea that the number 1 priority of government was to secure the RIGHTS of the people, not "national security" - which is just another way of saying State Security. Mr Chamberlin is politically opposed to the fundamental tenet of Americanism and the basic foundational premise of the American Revolution. Thus he is politically UNAMERICAN and is a counterrevolutionary.

I'd ask him for clarification on where he stands on rights, rather than just lambasting him because you don't like his wording. National security doesn't preclude securing our rights, though often it does seem like they're at odds with each other.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Further, the American Founders deplored a standing professional military. Several states explicitly denounce standing militaries in their state constitutions. Mr Chamberlin is a neocon Military-Industrial statist, not a pro-American champion of freedom and liberty.

In this day and age, not having a standing army is just asking the other governments to attack us. What do you propose as an alternative?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Moreover, as a professing Christian, he is committing treason against the King, Jesus Christ, who in His Word has declared the primary duty of government is to submit to Christ, punish evil, and reward good - ie to OBEY GOD AS AN EXPLICITLY CHRISTIAN BIBLE-DIRECTED INSTITUTION.

I fail to see how what he said is in opposition to that. Can you clarify what you mean?

Originally Posted by Esaias

2. He argues that if Republicans control the House, Senate, and the Executive, they will "pass important reforms and put America on a path to permanent prosperity." Yet the Republicans HAVE been in control of both the Executive and the Congress before, and have accomplished exactly zilch. Anyone with two brain cells can see that so it is obvious he is a typical pandering lying party-hack politician.

Actually, his exact words (which you quoted above) was "conservatives", not Republicans. While we typically associate conservatism with the Republican party, we all know there are plenty of leftist Republicans out there, just itching to go along with the Dems (e.g. McCain).

Look, I know nothing about this guy, apart from what was posted here, but if we're going to talk about him, let's at least do it honestly.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Just gonna keep this here for reference.


I'd ask him for clarification on where he stands on rights, rather than just lambasting him because you don't like his wording. National security doesn't preclude securing our rights, though often it does seem like they're at odds with each other.


In this day and age, not having a standing army is just asking the other governments to attack us. What do you propose as an alternative?


I fail to see how what he said is in opposition to that. Can you clarify what you mean?



Actually, his exact words (which you quoted above) was "conservatives", not Republicans. While we typically associate conservatism with the Republican party, we all know there are plenty of leftist Republicans out there, just itching to go along with the Dems (e.g. McCain).

Look, I know nothing about this guy, apart from what was posted here, but if we're going to talk about him, let's at least do it honestly.

Esaias has an incredible gift of knowing everything about everybody. Perhaps he did not consider that Ryan's reference to national security had more to do with the border than anything. When you have an open border and anarchy reigning in major cities, that is indeed the time to focus on national security lest we are overthrown by a mob that hates the Declaration of Independence that Esaias cited.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Just gonna keep this here for reference.


I'd ask him for clarification on where he stands on rights, rather than just lambasting him because you don't like his wording. National security doesn't preclude securing our rights, though often it does seem like they're at odds with each other.


In this day and age, not having a standing army is just asking the other governments to attack us. What do you propose as an alternative?


I fail to see how what he said is in opposition to that. Can you clarify what you mean?



Actually, his exact words (which you quoted above) was "conservatives", not Republicans. While we typically associate conservatism with the Republican party, we all know there are plenty of leftist Republicans out there, just itching to go along with the Dems (e.g. McCain).

Look, I know nothing about this guy, apart from what was posted here, but if we're going to talk about him, let's at least do it honestly.

The Founding generation abhorred the idea of a standing army (which is why the Constitution only authorizes a navy and assumes the existence of the civilian militia). The Founders believed the prime directive of government was to secure the God-given rights of the populace (rights given by the CHRISTIAN God). This candidate, like all modern so called "conservatives", does not support or champion those ideas, as clearly proven by his own campaign website. He feels the primary duty of government is state security, er, "national security", and fully supports a standing army bigger and badder than any other in the world.

Therefore, the guy is not in line with the fundamentally American political philosophy as enumerated by our founding documents and as explicated by the statements and policies of the Founders.

Side note regarding defending against foreign attack:

1. We have the biggest and most powerful national security apparatus the world has ever known. And here we are in the midst of a foreign directed communist revolutionary overthrow of the last vestiges of what was once America. So how's that national security been working out for us?

2. No nation has or could have the logistical capacity to effect a successful foreign invasion of the CONUS. Our geography alone guarantees that. Moreover, the Founders' riginal system called for civilian militia - every able bodied male trained and equipped with arms organized in local units under local control - as the primary defense against invasion AND INSURRECTION. A well regulated militia renders a standing army moot. Too bad hardly nobody in America has any interest in the Original Ideas.

3. Subversive communists maintain the Constitution is outdated. Conservatives agree. Thus, "the world is different now, so we gotta do things contrary to the Constitution now..." No real difference between liberals and conservatives, only the speed at which each group is trying to change (subvert) the nation.

Regarding his statements vs the Bible: if the primary duty of government is obedience to God and upholding righteousness, then it is NOT "national security" and having the most powerful army. A Christian who says "the main duty of government is..." and fails to even mention the Lordship of Christ is clearly not a serious and genuine Christian. At best they are wholly ignorant of God's view of government and THEREFORE have NO business being in government. They have committed treason against Christ by denying His authority and siding with His enemies who claim He has no say so in governance.

Conservatives haven't conserved anything. They aren't the future. Sorry.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Esaias has an incredible gift of knowing everything about everybody. Perhaps he did not consider that Ryan's reference to national security had more to do with the border than anything. When you have an open border and anarchy reigning in major cities, that is indeed the time to focus on national security lest we are overthrown by a mob that hates the Declaration of Independence that Esaias cited.

I have an incredible gift of simple reading comprehension. "Ryan" is like all other conservatives, and just like Trump: all tweet and no action. The conservatives don't care about the border anymore than Trump does. Otherwise they'd have actually done something about it long ago.

It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Conservatives are insane by that definition.

[Esaias]

Note about the standing army: the Constitution authorises a temporary raising of an army (federalised militia), not a permanent structure.

Of course, the Constitution itself contains numerous loopholes designed to continue the Royal commercial operation using the newly created federal government as it's tool of oppression.

Just like they did in Ireland, by the way.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have an incredible gift of simple reading comprehension. "Ryan" is like all other conservatives, and just like Trump: all tweet and no action. The conservatives don't care about the border anymore than Trump does. Otherwise they'd have actually done something about it long ago.

It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Conservatives are insane by that definition.

Oh, I think Ryan does care......now. I've already warned him about the "talking to" he will receive once he gets to Congress. But in the end, looking for any Federal solution is vain.