Time to leave the GOP?

On moral issues, I have a huge problem with the Democrats.

I would have joined the Republicans earlier but I was brainwashed by all my NYC neighbors.

"Leave. Go join Michael and the other supporters of the culture of death who seek to destroy the GOP by attacking the one party, the one President and the one Governor that actually took action on Terri's behalf. There is no room for ungrateful backstabbers in the republican or conservative movement."

Wow! You must be a recruiter for the RNC. It is Republicans like yourself that have caused so many TRUE conservatives to leave the GOP, with MANY more soon to follow. The GOP's constant shift to the "middle" (read LEFT) has alienated true conservatives. All that remains are a)the "moderate" (read LIBERAL) Republicans, b)the recently converted Democrats, and c)the mindless "Party Slave" sheep who will support anyone with an "R" next to their name, regardless of ideology. Judging by your remarks, I'm guessing you fall under "c".

The last sentence of your post is the one that I find funniest. The idea that anyone who leaves a party is a backstabber is a joke in itself. I don't hear you calling Zell Miller a backstabber. What about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Were they backstabbers for rebelling against the British Crown.

But the funniest part of the last sentence of your post is your equation of the Republican party with the conservative movement. While this may have applied 20 years ago, to believe so now only proves your ignorance. To consider GWB a conservative, you'd have to be pretty far left. Bush has actually been FAR more fiscally liberal than Clinton was. I find it amusing when Republican Party Slaves bash Clinton for being liberal and praise Bush for being a strong conservative.

The fact of the matter is that you won't find very many true conservatives among Republican Party leadership these days. They have all traded in their "strong conservative values" for moderate rhetoric that they think will attract more undecideds and conservative Democrats. True conservatives are "leaving the Party" (the Party actually LEFT us) and joining the Constitution Party. I made the switch 3 years ago, and am amazed at how much better it feels to vote for someone I agree with on EVERY issue instead of just a few. If you are a true conservative, check out the Constitution Party platform and you'll understand what I mean.

Is this what you want Free Republic to turn into? A place where speech is free only if I agree with you? I thought "tolerant liberals" squelched speech..

Just look at the keywords the admin added to this post, effectively putting it out in noman's land at a moment in history when this discussion needs to be brought up.

Jim, you have to make some sort of policy regarding speech here on this forum.

KEYWORDS: BOOHOO; CRYBABY; DEMOCRATSPY; DEMSSAYTHANKS; DEPRESSION; FLORIDA; GIVINGUPTHEGHOST; GOHILLARY; GOP; HYPERBOLE; HYSTERIA; IAMHOWARDDEAN; IWANNABEALOSER; JUDICARY; KENNEDYSWETDREAM; LIBERTARIANS; LIES; PAP; SCHIAVO; SEPPUKU; STUPIDITY; STUPIDVANITY; SUICIDE; THEGOPLEFTME; VANITY; WAAAAAH; WHATDOESARVOTEGETU; WRONGFORUM; WRONGRESPONSE; Click to Add Keyword

"Third parties don't work, and never have."
---

A machine heavier then air can never fly.

No thanks..

However, when push finally came to shove, he pulled a Pilate on Terri.

Why don't you get off this PP kick? Jeb DID send out the state police. They were enroute. They were rebuffed by the judge and the local police in St Pete. It sounds like Jeb ran into the exact same obstacles that you would have in doing a citizen's arrest. Why are you not as guilty as Jeb in Terri's death?

Dear sinkspur,

You also realize that in saying "other than Ross Perot," the standard you set for "some success" is not actual victory, or even permanent establishment of a thriving third party, but basically - "has a significant impact on the outcome of the election."

Here are some elections in which third party candidates had significant impact on the outcome of the election:

2000 - Ralph Nader - although he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, it's a reasonable argument that if he hadn't run, Al Gore would have been elected.

1996 - Perot

1992 - Perot

1980 - John Anderson took, if I recall, about 7% of the vote, thus turning a fairly close race into a fairly decisive Reagan victory (thank you, John Anderson).

1968 - George Wallace - probably elected Richard Nixon.

That's five out of the last 10.

We can show a couple more since the end of World War II, if you'd like.

Establishing a third party that is successful in the long-term, and can elect its own presidential candidates is difficult. As far as I know, it's only happened twice - when the Federalists went out of business and the Whigs picked up the pieces, and when the Whigs subsequently imploded with the rise of the Republican Party.

But third party movements that affect the outcome of presidential elections (either by determining the winner, or by substantially altering margins of victory) are relatively common, all things considered.

However, even the establishment of a long-term successful third party is not out of the question. It's happened twice before.

sitetest

>>With their Partial Birth abortion and their Abortion on a whim policies

The Partial Birth Abortion act highlights the problem: From a constitutional perspective, we gain our citizen's rights at birth.

Being born, artifically or naturally, gives us recognized and enumerated rights. How exactly did the Supreme Court forget this when they upheld the Constitutionality of this procedure? And how did the Republicans remind them?

The procedure should have been banned on the basis that it was an outright violation of a citizen's rights.

Banning the procedure ssimply means that more horrifice procedures, such as the D&E, will be used, and did nothing to address the Constitutional crisis the court upheld.

The Republicans didn't solve this problem, they just swept it under the rug...

>>Jeb DID send out the state police. They were enroute.

He sent them under the cover of a legal statute. He didn't send them because the Court overstepped it's boundaries. There is a difference.

>>It sounds like Jeb ran into the exact same obstacles that you would have in doing a citizen's arrest.

No, Jeb has the use of the National Guard, other State police, etc. HE could have easily overwhelmed the local law enforcement without a shot being fired.

"So, you want to replace pro-death tyrants with pro-life tyrants. That's nice."

Sitetest, different people have different agendas.
Mine is clear: I believe that life is a sacred gift of God, and I believe that we have no right to take it.

In other words, I believe that the divine law of protecting life utterly supersedes any contrary human opinion, including democracy and legal structures.

I want to see life protected, and I am ultimately more committed to seeing innocent life protected than I am to any particular process for getting there.

I am not a majority of the US, nor a majority of an court, nor could I be, because I am only one person. Presumably there are others who think as I do, but we are not majorities either. So, we have not created, nor had a lot of influence on the laws as they exist and the structures that got us there, obviously.

The structures that got us where we are, are a Supreme Court that manufactured a right to abortion on demand in 1973, and then expanded its opinion to make that right quasi absolute. On the matter of euthanasia, we have a judiciary that has decided that "right to die" cases are of a different order than death penalty cases, and that folks like Terri Schiavo are not entitled to the same exhaustive re-review of the FACTS (as opposed to the procedures) that death penalty awardees are. We have executives and legislatures that are not willing to assert powers to override the courts. So, we already have an imperial judiciary, which I did not create (and which I strongly advocated overriding to save Terri Schiavo's life), that created abortion rights and made euthanasia easy (neither of which I support).

There are many arguments.
Some folks are focused on the Constitutional order of thing. That's great, from my perspective. It's interesting, and perhaps it will get to the right result.
But then again, perhaps not. Suppose the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, turning abortion back to the states, and then 32 states voted to have abortion on demand? That certainly could happen. And because the constitutional process, as some see it, was completely respected, that would be the end of the argument. "Well, we tried. We got the process right. But the People were just not with us. Tough luck. The People voted that those babies die, and that is the end of it."

I do not believe that even the People have the "right" to vote that babies die. They might have the POWER to do it, to be sure, but if they do, they are still wrong, and I still want to see them stopped. Because the sacredness of life, being divine law, supersedes the constitution, democracy, and all human law, in my belief.

Therefore, the solution I prefer is for the judiciary, which created the abortion-on-demand right in the first place, should be peopled with men and women with a proper respect for the limits of power of human beings, and a clear understanding of the sacredness of life. Then I would hope that they would review Roe v. Wade and find a 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection which would force the absolute abolition of abortion in America, except to save the life of the mother, as a matter of the US Constitution. This prevents the electorate of some state from saying "WE vote to kill babies."

I do not believe that human beings have the right to kill babies. And I don't think that they gain the right to kill babies by writing constitutions and creating electoral processes whereby they vote to tell themselves that THEIR law is that it's ok to kill babies. It's all void as far as I am concerned, except insofar as it is backed with the power of violence inherent in government. The law is evil and wrong, but government certainly has the guns to impose it. Which makes the government doubly wrong in such a case.

My objective is to end abortion and the creep towards euthanasia and to protect all sacred life. In the process, I believe that a lot of people will be inadvertently saved from damnation by God for doing what was legal, according to the human law, but utterly prohibited by God.

I know people don't agree with me, and do not particularly care.
Some folks think that the US Constitution is the supreme be all and end all.
I think that the sacredness of life is divine in origin, and that the Constitution is a modest and interesting little piece of human opinion by comparison.

Folks like you and me have to work together in the same society, and usually we do. We agree on the basic: that life should be protected. We disagree not only on the mechanics for getting there, but on the relative importance of the belief. I belief that the right to life is divine, and that is trumps every human law in every case. You don't.

Our compromise is that we work through the legal process, to the extent we are both powerless. If today I were suddenly seized with divine powers like Gideon, I would not SUGGEST that we stop abortion and euthanasia, I would simply impose the rule I believe to be right.

Since I am in no position to do so, I have to work with you. And since you are not in any greater position to do so than me, you have to work with me. To get anything done that is good, therefore, we have to walk as far as we can down the road together.

But at the end of the day, if abortion will be prohibited by imperial judicial action, then I want that action taken NOW, and the democracy can take its time catching up. Because I believe that with life, in particular, because of its uniquely fragile and sacred character, that the cause of life supersedes process and law. I will, of course, find legal justifications for the argument - such as the 14th Amendment argument I gave above. But if there were no 14th Amendment, I would still want to see life protected.

Whatever process we use, the side of evil can always take control again.

You pointed out that those who are pro-death can just get the judiciary back. Sure. But if you turn it over to the democracy, the People of Massachusetts can vote to kill babies. And that does not achieve the necessary result.

Perhaps we differ on objectives.

Vic, I think neither one of us has to apologize for being a tyrant for life. Sitetest will have to live with the consequences of his choosing the other side.

"Refuse to vote for a Republican in 08 and you will ensure that we all will see THIS... on the steps of the Capital building in Jan 2009. Are you ready for 4 or 8 years of HER?"

I am tired of having to chose the lesser of two evils. I want something I can vote FOR, not an enemy to vote against.
The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

I voted FOR George Bush because I thought he shared my views of moral values and would do something about it. I also voted FOR his father and FOR Reagan. Although I still have great affection for him, I am disappointed with his performance in that area. As I was disappointed with Reagan and G.H.W. Bush performance in that area. I don't care to hear talk about "they could'nt or can't" because I consider that a cop out and a sign of weakness. The supreme court remains too liberal or left of center.

To get me to remain Republican, there is going to have to be some REAL reform and actions. Those within the party to oppose this need to go, or I need to go. As the Bible says, "Can two walk together unless they be in agreement." I can't walk with those opposed to me on social/moral issues anymore. Abortion and other attendant evils have got to go.

Thanks and agreed.

Of course not.

After Waco the course was its clearest. I always vote in a way that empowers the strongest challenger to the liberals.

Part of the political growing up process seems to involve a stab at third parties which perfectly reflect your own political views. You will quickly find that it to be an illusion. While they may reflect your views perfectly, they have zero, and I mean zero, power to do anything. And none of them will reflect your views better than the Republican Party. You can do much more in the Republican Party to promote the values you want to see enacted into law. The voice of experience is speaking, listen and benefit.

Dear Vicomte13,

"In other words, I believe that the divine law of protecting life utterly supersedes any contrary human opinion, including democracy and legal structures."

I agree. I no more assign any legitimacy to laws enshringing a "right" to abortion than you. They are unjust laws, and of themselves, require no adherence.

"I want to see life protected, and I am ultimately more committed to seeing innocent life protected than I am to any particular process for getting there."

Believe it or not, I am too.

"'Well, we tried. We got the process right. But the People were just not with us. Tough luck. The People voted that those babies die, and that is the end of it.'

"I do not believe that even the People have the 'right' to vote that babies die. "

I agree with you.

But I think your path is more likely to end in ultimate defeat.

"I belief that the right to life is divine, and that is trumps every human law in every case. You don't."

In this, you're wrong. I agree that the right to life is divine, and trumps every human law in every case. Absolutely.

"Therefore, the solution I prefer is for the judiciary, which created the abortion-on-demand right in the first place, should be peopled with men and women with a proper respect for the limits of power of human beings, and a clear understanding of the sacredness of life."

That would be nice... except.

"But at the end of the day, if abortion will be prohibited by imperial judicial action, then I want that action taken NOW,..."

I wouldn't.

Because we don't live in a Catholic confessional state, or even a country that is predominantly Catholic.

We live in a pagan nation that used to be predominantly Protestant. We're living off the moral capital of the previous status.

As well, many of the ordinary people of the United States are at least somewhat Christian, not entirely pagan.

But the power elites of our country are almost uniformly pagan.

We don't live in a Catholic monarchy, but rather a non-Christian republic. Or at least, it used to be a republic.

You're endorsing a system not readily suspectible to change by the agitiation of ordinary folks, if you can get your tyrants in control.

Unfortunately, our tyrants aren't going to get control, because we represent NOWHERE NEAR the majority. And even if our tyrants got control for a fleeting time, they would not last. Tyranny is manipulated by the powerful, not the ordinary. The powerful in our country are the most corrupted, the most evil, the most pagan, the most bought-in to the culture of death. So it goes in tyrannies. The righteous tyrant is the exception, not the rule.

Worse still, with the other side's tyrants in control, the defeat of life is becoming, and will become complete.

I have no illusions about the United States. Our country is a pretty decent one, as countries go. Over the long course of human history, it's been a ton better than average, perhaps even the most just country to have existed on earth. Perhaps.

But it's just a country governed by men, and men are fallible. Men sin, and make errors of judgment. Only the pope, when proclaiming teaching that is certain as the Universal Pastor of the Holy Catholic Church is rendered unable to speak falsely.

In our system, I believe it isn't at all likely that we'll get pro-life tyrants, at least not for any measure of time.

On earth, there are no eternal solutions in human dealings. But the most long-lasting ones are the ones that arise from the common consensus of the people.

The right to life, in a republic, is best defended, on the ground, practically speaking, by a citizenry that embraces it.

And in a republic, that consensus is expressed through political means, through democratic means, not through tyranny.

The irony is, although it is far from perfect, there is pretty much a pro-life consensus in the United States, today. Most folks, when asked whether they would ban abortion in all cases by rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic deformity, say, yup, that's what the law ought to be.

Well, that's about 96% of abortions. That means, if we were to restrict abortion to those cases, the number of legal abortions would fall from somewhere around 1.3 million per year to somewhere around 50,000 per year.

That's about 50,000 too many, from my perspective, from the Catholic persective. But it's about a 1.25 million not-dead babies improvement over what we have now.

And yes, I would rest, then. For at least a day, and maybe a week.

Then, back to trying to change the law to protect in law the last 50,000 babies per year thus threatened.

But the trick there will be that we will have convert folks to real, obedient Faith in the One True Church (including a lot of nominal members of the One True Church). I doubt that we'll get further than what I've described without creating a genuinely Catholic culture in the United States.

But we cannot even get to the very most minimal position - banning infanticide - right now, because we have judicial tyranny.

I don't endorse continued judicial tyranny as a solution to the current judicial tyranny. Although the democratic solution is way far from perfect, I think in the longer term, it beats tyranny by a bunch.

sitetest

That's pretty much your pickins' in third parties.

Ditto.

They refused to renew the AWB. What are you talking about?

When will I be allowed to purchase a machine gun? When will I be able to carry concealed, without the threat of arrest (because I refuse to apply for a 'permit')? When will I be able to take some confidence in knowing my gun rights are SECURE? Obviously not as long as anyone who is in DC now is still there, Pubbies included.

I have to agree with 1st Freedom on this one. The GOP has gone so far left it isn't funny anymore. It's time to take the GOP back. I wouldn't say LEAVING the GOP will do much good, but taking it back...

Sitetest,

Thank you for your post.
We agree on so much, even on the particular moral solidity that having a Catholic state gives to the laws of society.

A couple of thoughts:

(1) Actually, before the next Census, America will be a predominantly Catholic nation, at least according to the Census reports. One of the nastier shocks that the Democratic secular left has gotten from the waves of Hispanic immigration, which they figured would be their new "Black Bloc" of ethnic thralls, is that Hispanics are more Catholic and traditionally Christian in morality than they are ethnic. So many are poor, and yet 44% voted for the Republicans in the last election. The demographic trend of Catholicism is actually the best in the nation.

(2) I think that there is almost complete common ground on Christian moral issues between Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Baptists and the like, as well as the growing numbers of Eastern Orthodox from the Middle Eastern diaspora. We all disagree on ecclesialogy, of course, and always will during our lifetimes. But each through his own path has come to the identical place on life. The old "mainstream" (but rapidly dwindling) traditional Protestant sects have embraced the culture of death, but the catholic Orthodox, and the atomized Evangelicals with little to nothing in the way of organized Church to distract them from the Word of God in the Bible, are all flying in close formation when it comes to abortion and euthanasia.

That's why I suggested, further up the thread, that what is really needed is not a new political party, nor necessarily a mass Christian exodus from the Republican party, but a Christian Innocent Life PAC that only focuses on abortion and euthanasia, on which all pro-life Christians agree.

That said, I don't see it being organized by anybody.
The current pro-life groups are generally tied to a specific church or religion. That's somewhat effective, but what you really NEED, politically, is for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and all of their religious followers to be in the same political organization and sharing values with the Catholics and their bishops on abortion. A pan-Christian Innocent Life PAC would be huge. It would dwarf the NRA, and it would really represent the views of all of its members on the narrow but vital front on which it acted. All of the existing groups would still exist, but the bigger organism would be able to coordinate their clout in a way that it is difficult for them to do now. To put it in simple terms, when you look at the current structure of the pro-life movement it's just very hard for the Reverend Falwell and the Archbishop of New York to sit down in full view of all of their members and work as officials and spokesman for the same organization. They've used the Republican Party as their proxy, but that obviously doesn't work.

A Christian Innocent Life NRA is what we need.
We stay Republicans or Democrats, nominally (what difference does it make), but our PAC brings together all of the like-minded people on the issue we care most about, and drives the agenda much as the NRA drives the Second Amendment agenda.

I see no distinction between Catholic and Evangelical pro-life belief, and think that we can get to a majority consensus for protecting babies a long time before we have a Catholic America.

Dittoes to that. :P