Posted on 01/24/2016 5:57:51 AM PST by detective
Living legend and conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly slammed National Review for their efforts to take down GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump.
On Friday's program of The Laura Ingraham Show, Schlafly declared, "I don’t recognize National Review as the authority on conservatism." Schlafly blasted National Review for being more eager to fight Donald Trump than they are to fight the Republican donor-class, whom Schlafly calls the Kingmakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
BINGO. Fix that or things will get much, much worse. HELLO, is this thing on? Can you hear me?
The founder of conservatism, Edmund Burke, insisted on it. Classic conservatism cannot exist when the spiritual base of the true God is not honored.
They might talk the talk, but they can’t EXPERIENCE the basis of a principled, guided wholesomeness.
Cruz troubles me far more than Trump does.
I know a lot of folks can’t understand why.
They can think of me as they like.
I’ll be voting for the guy who didn’t gloss over his past.
“Cruz troubles me far more than Trump does.”
Cruz troubles a lot of people. There is a reason for it. Change! People are not used to getting change in large doses. Cruz’s approach would be far more radical than any candidate out there.
I remember Tony Robbins saying that when you are so far extreme in one direction to get back to the middle you have to be just as extreme. Cruz fills that role. Trump doesn’t. Which is not a knock on Trump, but a validation of Cruz’s constitutional position.
For Cruz, it is compared to the purist Conservative. You are either 100% for the constitution or you’re not. There is no 70,80,90% conservative.
But you do remember the parable about the two sons and the work in the vinyard?
Something to contemplate. Matthew 21:28
Here is one but I will only say Phyllis is not the authority on conservatism either. The shoe fits both ways.
I thought Yogi passed away....
If the knife cuts wear it.
It’s as close to it as there is.
Why do so many long-time, dyed-in-the-wool, in-the-trenches conservative luminaries oppose Trump’s nomination? Has Phyllis asked herself that?
It’s because Trump is not and never has been on our side.
Holmes would weave a story incorporating all the facts. When a new fact was uncovered, he would change the story.
Watson would look at the result, and express wonderment as to how the result was arrived at, while being ignorant of the facts.
And she gets it
“It’s because Trump is not and never has been on our side.”
You keep making irrational pronouncements as if they’re facts.
Trump wants to rid America of illegal aliens and build a wall. He wants to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.. He has “no place in his life” for political correctness, or letting the Feds determine how our children are taught. He’s pro-life and optimistic about the future of the country. He’s our only hope against the sheer evil that is Hillary Clinton.
If that’s not YOUR side, maybe you better re-evaluate what side you’re actually ON.
I’d go with Phyllis Schlafly’s position on conservatism. Anyone for war is a neo-con not a conservative.
WELL said, Awgie!
There is NOTHING more conservative than stopping a permanent democrat/marxist voting majority and doing whats best for the people and the country. By virtue of Mr. Trumps position on illegal immigration he Trumps all others conservatism.
Many of us were duped for the first decade or so.
Eventually you start to realize, "Hey, the wars never seem to end and we never seem to "win". And, "Weird, these "groups" of bad guys keep popping up that do things like kill puppies and publicly bathe people in acid".
It used to be only once in a while we got the "took all the babies off the incubator" emotional heart strings propaganda. Now it's daily.
After a while, even the most obtuse start to catch on.
Trump supports amnesty — the form of amnesty known as touchback. That’s not “ridding America of illegal aliens.” He is NOT going to do that.
He’s been an Establishment dealmaker all his adult life. Now, all of a sudden, he’s not PC and he’s anti-Establishment? Really?
Has he even mentioned reducing the size, scope, cost, or intrusiveness of the Federal government? No. If he’s so against letting Feds dictate how to educate our children, what does he plan to do about it? Eliminating the Department of Education would be a good start.
He syas he’s pro-life, but he was on teh pro-abort side and says his sister, a strong pro-abort, would make a great Supreme Court Justice. (He won’t appoint her becauase she’s older than he is and you want someone thre longer. But that’s the KIND of justice he would appoint.)
Hillary is beatable. All of the top 3 Republicans, at least, currently poll ahead of her. I suspect that most of the stragglers could beat her too.
Trump doesn’t understand the problem with governing by executive order. He’s for eminent domain abuse. He has praised single payer and taxing the wealthy.
He’s changed his voter registration 6 times, repeatedly leaving and joining the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
If we win with a guy like that, what have we won?
Try these 2015 caveats on for size:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGrSYWAkxg&feature=youtu.be<
Trump: “With caveats, life of the mother, incest and rape. And that’s where I stand. So I’m pro-life, but with the caveats. It’s life of the mother,very important, incest and rape.”
Halperin: “So say a woman is pregnant and it’s not in any of those exception categories and she chooses to have an abortion, should she —”
Trump: “It depends when, it depends when. It depends when.”
Halperin: “Well let’s say early in her pregnancy.”
Trump: “Excuse me. If it’s not in any of those — pro-life. Mark it’s very simple. Pro-life.”
Kudos to your spot on post, datricker. I’m right there with you.
Try these 2015 caveats on for size:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGrSYWAkxg&feature=youtu.be<
Trump: “With caveats, life of the mother, incest and rape. And that’s where I stand. So I’m pro-life, but with the caveats. It’s life of the mother,very important, incest and rape.â€
Halperin: “So say a woman is pregnant and it’s not in any of those exception categories and she chooses to have an abortion, should she —â€
Trump: “It depends when, it depends when. It depends when.â€
Halperin: “Well let’s say early in her pregnancy.â€
Trump: “Excuse me. If it’s not in any of those — pro-life. Mark it’s very simple. Pro-life.â€
Agree. The more I look into Cruz the more I think he has the same goals as GW Bush.
In fact, I think Cruz would be closer to governing like to Bush than Jeb would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.