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.

[patriciaruth]

Question:

Who owns the land along the border? Is a lot or it private or is most of it government land?

Why settle for the volunteers going down to watch the border? Why not pull a Habitat for Humanity trick, and start building fences on private property with the owner's permission?

[LS]

Amen, Jim. I'm not opting out. I am going to register a protest vote (a non-vote) against DeWine, partly because I'm confident even if he were to lose, the Senate would be secure, and partly because at some point a good commander has to fire colonels who flagrantly disobey orders, even if it means temporarily the regiment is headed by an ignoramus.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, whatever we do, we cannot allow the Dems to take power. If they do, we're liable to see that voting bloc legalized and coming into play.

[DoctorMichael]

A big ol' FreeRepublic BUMP!

[Skooz]

Perot wasn't on the ballot in 1994

I know.

Perot helped Clinton win a second term in 1996 because Perot was a spoiler candidate who divided the GOP base,

I know.

the GOP is weakened when it's base is out supporting goofy third parties.

I know.

But, the fact remains: The 1994 congressional elections were a direct repudiation of Clinton.

[Tokra]

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.

Those of you who are contemplating throwing your vote away (or not even casting it) this November - please think very carefully about the consequences of your actions.

Putting the demoncrats back into power will NOT help further our agenda. It will NOT make everyone vote for a conservative in 2008.

If the dems win in November, we will STILL get the blame for everthing that goes wrong because there will still be a Republican in the White House. No matter how bad the dems screw things up - George Bush will get the blame and that will almost guarantee a democrat in the White House in January of 2009.

The stratgey of letting dems win this year so people will be fed up with them and vote Republican in 2008 will not work ! It will backfire and put this country at risk.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, bad campaigning gave us 8 years of Clinton.

No, a fractured base gave us 8 years of Clinton.

[Echo Talon]

Sir, REPUBLICANS hold a majority, not conservatives. And political parties these days are about winning, ideology. The 'Pubbies will pander to anybody who will keep 'em in power.

And democrats have NO conservatives.

[usmcobra]

Perot showed people that change was possible, he made them feel like they could effect a change in leadership, he rode a wave of discontent and steered people along with him. That wave of discontent ultimately cost the democrats contol of congress.

In the end, no matter what you say, Perot told americans they could be a force for change and could change the government if they were unhappy with it, and in 1994 they did.

If anything republicans were caught with their pants down by Perot and it took them two years to figure out a way to capitolize on Perot's success.

[Sloth]

Look at the bigger picture, are you more closely aligned with the Republicans or the Democrats?

The Republicans. That's why socialism within the GOP is so much more frustrating than socialism within the Dems, where it's expected. And that's why I don't want to see the GOP become exactly the same as the Dems, which is the natural consequence of voting for them unquestioningly.

[Echo Talon]

Well, in my defense, I came from a family of democrats. And, back in those days, we got all our news from Walter Cronkite and the Detroit Free Press. Seems like the dark ages now, a time before Rush and Free Republic...

my dad was a UAW worker and Carter was the only dem he ever voted for.

[BigSkyFreeper]

In the end, no matter what you say, Perot told americans they could be a force for change and could change the government if they were unhappy with it, and in 1994 they did.

Newt's Contract With America is a direct result of the GOP winning the House. Had nothing to do with Perot's "sucking sound" speech in 1992.

[bill1952]

Any incumbent is hard to defeat, and Nelson is certainly no different in that respect.

Harris has a good chance, but as always, it depends on republican voter turnout and support.
I don't care what the dems do or say, and their 5th column in the MSM means even less.

Hyperbole aside, it will be tough but doable. I support Harris all the way.

[savedbygrace]

Thanks for the encouraging words. However, its hard to feel encouraged when forced to choose between the 'Rats we know and "Republicans" we don't know. I voted for Bush TWICE. I have been a loyal and faithful Republican voter for 20 years. But now I don't know the party any more. That concerns me more than risking one or two elections.

Not only that, but the Republican Party is never more conservative than when they have Minority status. Being in the Majority, and their overwhelming desire to cling to Majority status, has changed them for the worse.

The longer they're the Majority in Congress, the less conservative they are.

[Rebelbase]

I think the republicans have underestimated the contempt that the avgerage joe blow has for their pandering to the illegals. If the republicans(Bush) can be encouraged to see to it that current law is enforced it will appease a great many disgusted (r) voters.

But, I don't see it happening becuase in the end it's all about the votes.

[spectre]

We have to make sure McCain doesn't get the nomination.

Unlike you, I will sleep thru the election before I'd EVER take responsiblity for the consequences of casting a vote for John McCain.

sw

[savedbygrace]

And the more corrupt a number of their members become.

[Jim Robinson]

"If we lose the immigration fight and the illegals are permitted to become citizens we will lose everything."

If we allow the democrats to regain power, then THEY will allow the illegals to become citizens and we automatically lose the immigration issue, along with a whole host of other issues just as important.

I'd like to see the illegal immigration problem solved too, but if it's not solved this year or even during the rest of Bush's term, it will not be the end of America as we know it. Keep the majority, keep electing the most conservative people we can, keep control over the White House and Senate and I guarantee you that eventually the problem will be solved.

[bill1952]

No, bad campaigning gave us 8 years of Clinton.

Hah! Lets reduce it to the minimum shall we?

No Perot = no Clinton. Basic and undeniable fact.

[indcons]

Bump...good points, NZerFromHK

Some prominent and obnoxious ChiCom trolls come to mind (if you know who I mean). One of these trolls has been consistently abusing FR in his posts but is shameless enough to post repeatedly here.