Just a reminder: Free Republic is a conservative site

[Jim Robinson]

Just a reminder: Free Republic is a conservative site. We fight for conservative principles, values and causes. We defend the Constitution. We defend our borders. We defend our God-given rights. We are opposed to the liberal/socialist/Marxist agenda for America. We do not willingly give up ground to the Marxists.

It's true that the illegal immigration issue is very discouraging, and I don't know if anyone has a solution that will appeal to conservatives and yet manage to get by Democrat obstructionism, ie, a filibuster, but I don't see that as any reason to give up everything. We should not allow it to rip us apart and destroy the movement. We fight on.

We hold the majority. We continue working as hard as we possibly can to elect as many conservatives as we possibly can. We build a conservative majority that can overcome the Democrats and the RINOs. We do not willingly give up any seats to Democrats. We add seats. Preferably, conservative seats.

I would also like to remind everyone, that Free Republic does not condone racism and does not advocate violence. We exercise our first amendment rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. We do not condemn people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, skin color, etc. We do not advocate civil war, anarchy, or an overthrow of the government. We do not advocate shooting illegals or mining the borders. We do not appreciate people coming across our borders illegally, but as conservatives, we do not issue racial epithets or threaten them with violence or bodily harm.

And, yes, we are at war. And we do support our troops and their mission. We also respect our commander-in-chief and are mindful that when people disrespect him, it hurts troop morale. We do not appreciate the mainstream media's attempts to destroy America's will to fight and we do not do anything to assist the Democrats and their accomplices in the media in their treasonous mission of undermining the war effort by providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

And despite our dissatisfaction and disappointments in regards to the illegal immigration issue, we recognize that it is not the last issue on earth and there are plenty of other reasons not to allow the Marxist Democrats to retake power.

I'll list a few issues (by no means and exhaustive list) that will be adversely affected by Marxist/Democrats in power:

Islamofascism/terrorism
National Security/Defense
The United Nations (as in their control over us)
The Supreme Court
The federal judiciary
The legislative agenda
The right to life
Marriage between one man, one woman
The family
Education
Health care
Private property
Taxation
Oil/energy
The right to keep and bear arms
The right to freedom of religion
The right to self-governance
All of our God-given rights
The Constitution
The Republic
Liberty itself

Do not get so discouraged that we give it all up. It could take generations to get it back. If ever.

"Securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" is our duty.

[Pippin]

Thanks, Jim!

[FBD]

>"Best be thinking about how to get conservatives elected as Republicans..."<

---

The Medicare prescription drug plan was brought about by Republicans, signed by a Republican President.
The total unfunded liability of Medicare Part D is $16.6 trillion. Medicare now has a total unfunded liability of 61.6 trillion:

http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/2005/20050217tst.html

"Taking all three parts of Medicare together we owe the current generation a total of $29.2 trillion and future generations will add another $32.5 trillion to this obligation. Thus, the total Medicare debt is a staggering $61.6 trillion."

http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/2005/20050217tst.html

---

What has the Republican party done to address this issue?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, it probably wasn't brought about by conservative Republicans. Which other party has enough voters to actually get conservatives elected? Even Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo run as Republicans.

[FBD]

"Well, it probably wasn't brought about by conservative Republicans."

???
Probably? President Bush signed the Prescription Drug Act:
(16 trillion dollars of additional unfunded debt), and the majority of Republicans in BOTH the House and the Senate supported it. So, I guess the majority of Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative?

Medicare Will Consume Almost All Income Taxes by 2075: Trustee for Social Security, Medicare testifies before Senate Budget Committee

I'll ask you to consider the question again: What is the Republican party doing to address this issue? It's an additional 16 trillion dollars worth of federal debt.

It's not going to go away, by merely saying it wasn't *conservative* Republicans who brought it about.

"Which other party has enough voters to actually get conservatives elected?

"Even Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo run as Republicans."

Party be damned; I thought conservative principals came first. Someone once told me, an a FReepmail:
"Marxism is the issue. Illegal immigration is a symptom."

I'll vote for the most fiscally *conservative* candidate, regardless of what *party* he or she is in.

[nosofar]

The Republican Party and Conservatism are not synonymous. Now that Republicans have control of government, Conservatives must get control of the Republican Party.

[antceecee]

Thank you Jim.

[nosofar]

Creationism is a Cancer on Conservatism

Creationism has nothing to do with Conservatism one way or the other.

[nosofar]

But my 2 cents is that evolution is not the most screaming of priorities.

The general idea of evolution is perfectly sound. I assume you and others here are referring to biological evolution (macro-evolution in particular since there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution). The US, in fact, was founded on the idea of social evolution. That society should be allowed to evolve as opposed to government designing society. Bad ideas, cultures, and values will naturally die out.

[nosofar]

Does this mean We have to vote for McLame if he's the nominee? /s Conservatives 08

Unless you'll prefer the alternative.

[Quix]

Sorry.

It's a pretty boring and frustrating topic for me.

[Jim Robinson]

Like I said, it wasn't brought about by conservative Republicans.

But I think you're missing my larger point. I'm saying it is up to us to elect "conservatives" and in order to elect them you must have enough voters to defeat their biggest opponents and, obviously, that would be the Democrats. The only Party that has the organization and numbers of voters to do this is the Republican Party. It's up to us to support and elect the most conservative candidates as we possibly can, and that means they must run as Republicans (assuming you actually want to get them elected).

[antceecee]

Well said... and for those who don't like the RINOS, get out in the trenches and start promoting true conservatives. I really think it's all about working on the so called 'grassroots' level.
I don't know if this is a good comparison, but it's kind of like the old saying "if you watch your pennies the dollars take care of themselves".... if you work to elect good solid conservatives to the lower level offices, eventually they will move up and the important state anf federal offices will 'take care of themselves'... eventually we will have some great people working for us.

[Vaquero]

as part of the conservative voting block, evangelical Christians and their cause celeb of Creationism, it most certainly is.

While their other major contribution to the platform, banning abortion, is something tangeble and has major backing from many quarters.

[FBD]

>"It's up to us to support and elect the most conservative candidates as we possibly can, and that means they must run as Republicans"<

Yes, but that all changes when they get to Washington, doesn't it? Any newly elected firebrand conservative gets the "arm around the shoulder" talk; and the Party leadership makes it's members toe the moderate line. (If they want to keep in the good graces of the leadership.)

Consider Congressman Nick Smith's story, (and the career of his son) when he opposed the Medicare prescription drug plan:

---

"I was targeted by lobbyists and the congressional leadership to change my vote, being a fiscal conservative and being on record as a no vote.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert talked to me for a long time about the bill and about why I should vote yes.

Other members and groups made offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son Brad who is running for my seat. They also made threats of working against Brad if I voted no. Brad heard about what was going on and called me to say he didn't want to get to Congress that way and that I should do the right thing. That added to my resolve.

I told all those urging a yes vote the same thing:
This bill will lead to explosive new costs and huge unfunded liabilities that will unfairly burden future generations.

The current unfunded liability for Medicare is about $14 trillion in current dollar value. Adding the new Medicare drug provision increases the unfunded liability by $7.6 trillion for a total of $21.6 trillion in today=s dollars. The bill promised trillions in new benefits with no idea how to pay for them other than passing the bill to future generations." -Column by Congressman Nick Smith - November 23, 2003

---

By the way, weren't grass roots Republican conservatives going to keep Arlen Specter from becoming Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee? How'd that work out, anyway?

[dr_who_2]

Right on!

[mnehring]

BTT..

Best thread ever.

[Chena]

Jim, your excellent article should be "bumped" each and every day! Some here need a reality check. BTTT!

[jpsb]

Bump!

[RebekahT]

THANKS for posting that, Jim.

All the Bush-bashing and Constution Party talk on here was about to make me leave FR.

No candidate/party will ever be perfect. Let's just all work to make ours (the GOP) better, stronger, and more productive!

[KeyLargo]

"(the GOP)"

Are you saying that the GOP is conservative?

Not as long as the party is dominated by RINOS.