Posted on 11/18/2004 7:17:23 AM PST by angel90210
One of the reasons I waited so long to endorse President Bush, was because I know that some of the worst domestic and foreign policy initiatives in recent U.S. history have come under the watch and direction of Republican administrations.
It's hard to imagine, for instance, that a Democrat president could have imposed wage and price controls on the American people as President Nixon did.
It's hard to imagine that a Democrat president could have opened relations with the brutish, totalitarian, communist government in China as Nixon did.
It's hard to imagine that a Democrat president could have fundamentally altered the U.S. relationship with Israel as the first President Bush did.
And, likewise, if John Kerry were elected president earlier this month, I suspect there would be general outrage from Republicans if one of his first acts was to throw the Boy Scouts off military bases because of their commitment to God.
If John Kerry were elected president, I suspect there would be general outrage from Republicans if one of his first initiatives was for coercive, mandatory mental-health screening for all children in the country without parental approval.
If John Kerry had been elected president, I suspect there would be much more concern being expressed about a Council on Foreign Relations effort to destroy U.S. sovereignty with an expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement that analysts agree would effectively eliminate U.S. national borders.
In other words, radical plans are afoot. Radical actions are being taken by the Bush administration. And these insidious plots are progressing almost without criticism under the cover of the Bush administration.
So far, on the Boy Scout front, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not even been forced to explain the Pentagon's capitulation to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union in that degenerate group's continuing war on everything decent in this country. Was Rumsfeld involved in the decision? Does he approve of it? Will he review it for reversal? Was Bush informed before the Pentagon threw in the towel and abandoned the Boy Scouts to the quasi-legal terrorism of the ACLU?
No one is even asking the questions.
Then there is the issue of forced mental-health screening contained in legislation that could be approved in the U.S. Senate as early as this week. I wonder where the "civil libertarians" are on this one. Are they too busy persecuting the Boy Scouts to notice this Hillary Clinton-style power grab by the federal government and the imminent danger it poses to the individual rights of every American?
Do we as a people no longer believe in the simple principle that parents are in the best position to make decisions about the health and welfare of their children? Or have we as a nation decided that all children are wards of the state and only on loan to the custody and care of their parents? When did this national debate take place? How did I miss it? I know I missed the debate about abandoning the Constitution and its strict limits on what the federal government can do. I won't even go there. But are American parents really ready to hand over the care of their kids to Washington?
And finally, there is the issue of national sovereignty, which may face its gravest threat yet under the direction of the Bush administration.
NAFTA had to be approved by a Republican Congress and now it appears that a dangerous initiative dubbed "NAFTA on steroids" may be championed by the Bush administration.
Officials from Canada and Mexico and the U.S. are meeting right now, drawing up the plans for this radical idea for virtually eliminating national borders and setting up a European Union-style approach to law enforcement, immigration policy and security. When those officials have cooked up the full plan, they will share it not with Congress, not with the president, not with the people, but with the Council on Foreign Relations.
Presumably, it will then be spoon-fed to the people in bits and pieces so they never really understand what is coming.
That's why I am warning you what is coming.
And it will be coming, I suspect, with a wink and a nod from the Bush administration.
Do we still believe in the rule of law and the will of the people? Is this a firm principle behind which we stand regardless of who sits in the White House and who controls Congress? Are you ready to stand up and fight against these assaults on our Constitution, common sense and freedom?
Well...I may not agree totally, I still have faith in Bush.
However, onward to 2008. Let's get this guy to run!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281271/posts
Which colors would those be? Could you be a little more specific?
Face it: It's just hard to imagine another Democratic president, period.
I am such a liberal wiener I wanted to trash him with my "endorsement."
Joe Farah a "liberal wiener". Hardly.
If you recall, El Presidente Jorge announced plans to revive an amnesty plan for illegals not even a week after winning the election.
You're right. The items Farah mentions stink to high Heaven.
It is tough to find a candidate that agrees with you 100% of the time on 100% of the issues.
He made no secret of his guest worker plan before the election. I see nothing sneaky here.
Clearly you object to his program, which is fine, but he didn't hide his intentions from anybody.
I have faith in Pres Bush, BUT, I dont like the Boy Scout deal and Im so surprised at Rumsfelt... I want something done about this outrage...I've emailed everyone I know to email....whats going on Pres Bush and Rummie??
dont let us down...
Farah's behavior was completely idiotic this election cycle. He came across as a complete goofball.
John Kerry were elected president earlier this month, I suspect there would be general outrage from Republicans if one of his first acts was to...
Right good old party loyalty=hypocrisy. There is consolidation of power in the higher ranks of the right's political machine. People in power are more interested in power than with the truth. The ditto heads blindly follow their leaders.
If you're looking for the people outraged by NAFTA and our trading with totalitarian states, find yourself some people from the other half of your country. They're pissed about these things too.
Thank you so much for your willingness to hold your party up to your standards. Over at least the next 2 years everything the government does will be the responsibility of the Republicans. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"It's hard to imagine that a Democrat president could have opened relations with the brutish, totalitarian, communist government in China as Nixon did."
Ummm...I can imagine that re-e-e-eal easy. Try Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea for starters, Joe.
WND and Farah play their 'independent' and 'libertarian' card a little too often for my tastes. Like the alternative RAT strategy in ANY friggin' context would be preferable to an independent freedom lover? Go home and sulk, Joe.
OK, Maybe you're right.
>It is tough to find a candidate that agrees with you 100% >of the time on 100% of the issues.
Lincoln said it best, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
At the core of the GOP platform continues to lie the centrist, big tent fallacy. Those of us who are true rightists were team players for the election, since we knew that Kerry would have been worse (in spite of some of what Farah stated, incorrectly, here, regarding Kerry's supposed lack of freedom to act) but now we need to speak up. Let's face it. The GOP platform is no longer entirely based on Conservative principles but has become contaminated with Transnational Progressivism and 3rd Way Utopian rubbish. Certainly, part of the rationale for such accomodations has been "to appeal to swing voters" and to secure the support of multinational corporations. As for the former, perhaps education is in order as for the latter, since many of them also support the DNC, how worthwhile is their support?
The knee jerk response of the 3rd Way Big Tenters is to call all whom they disagree with "liberals." Some of this may be simple idiocy, but some of it is no doubt calculated to get under the skin of us ILLIBERAL true rightists. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me ... ;)
Why is it trash? Does the true rightist viewpoint anger you into writing your own rubbish?
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.