Posted on 04/11/2006 3:33:35 AM PDT by 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.
Thanks for the reminder. This country is so much more , so much greater than just an economy.
Bill Clinton was elected because GHW went back on bis promise not to raise taxes. Pure and simple. Ross Perot was give his opportunity on a silver platter by Bush.
"3rd party is a waste of time."
That is true, but only because the "Demopublican" party has stacked the deck against third parties.
One thing jumped out at me from Sen. Kyl's proposal: "Authorizes $50 million over 5 years in grants for American Indian Tribes on border adversely affected by illegal immigration..."
What in tarnation is that? Much as I like Sen. Kyl, that sounds to me like a hand-out. Pandering.
As for Kyl's critique of the Senate compromise...
"The proposal by Sens. Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), would separate illegal immigrants into groups depending on the length of time they have resided illegally in the country. Based upon the length of stay, one group would be immediately placed on a legal path to citizenship, while the other group could get on a legal path to citizenship after going to a land port of entry (presumably in Mexico) and reentering the U.S...."
Well, Senator Kyl's proposal would do exactly the same thing for the second group ["get on a legal path to citizenship after going to a land port of entry (presumably in Mexico) and reentering the U.S."]. As I understand it.
As for those described by Kyl as the first group (those "immediately placed on a legal path to citizenship") --Kyl is talking here about illegals who have been in this country for many years.
While it's true the Senate compromise would place such long-term illegals "on the legal path," the path proposed in the Senate compromise is not easy. To qualify for this status, they would have to:
- Prove their length of residency (through copies of bills or paid taxes for example).- Prove they had paid taxes, and they would have to pay back-taxes on anything owed (I know, it would be hard to estimate this, but it could be done).
- Prove they could speak English.
- Get "in the back of the line" and wait years for final legal status to be granted.
- And they would have to pay a fine for having broken the law to be here in the first place.
I really think this is a reasonable and fair proposal. None of that sounds like an easy path to me. And it certainly isn't amnesty.
Why is Kyl opposed to it?
As much as I hate to admit it, this poster is correct. Although, I believe If Perot would have never entered the race to begin with Bush would have won.
You are dead on accurate with that statement.
----------------
Am deeply humbled and honored you'd say so.
I just would to God it were not so.
Alas, these things must needs be, it seems. But woe to those on the wrong side of the wrong fence.
But Sunday's comin'! . . . a VERY long and eagerly awaited Sabbath.
Until then, we best pray, walk close to Him and work as never before.
"Bill Clinton was elected because GHW went back on bis promise not to raise taxes. Pure and simple. Ross Perot was give his opportunity on a silver platter by Bush."
Exactamundo, mega dittos, and darn tootin'.
Seriously, you'd be surprised at how many of us there actually are here that have no doubt to what the UN's ultimate goal is. We just have to wade through the scoffing, ridicule, deridement,(is that a word) which only makes us more determined not to be silenced. Eventually they go away though and we are left in peace. Documented information beyond belief is posted on those threads.
Stiff upper lip and all that.
The REAL lesson a party needs to remember from the 1992 elections is; Don't go back on a premise that has been memorialized by an unforgettable quote. "READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES"
That is true, but only because the "Demopublican" party has stacked the deck against third parties.
Whatever the reason thats the reality.
That's because Perot was smart enough not to try and beat W.
"I believe If Perot would have never entered the race to begin with Bush would have won."
This theory keeps turning up like the proverbial bad penny. IMHO it is more appropriate to Usenet, specifically alt.history.what-if.
Poland. I hear Poland is very nice. And a land worth defending.
You and me both.
But Sunday's comin'! . . . a VERY long and eagerly awaited Sabbath.
Until then, we best pray, walk close to Him and work as never before.
Amen. Thanks friend.
..I am sorry to say, but I agree.
The tone has really changed on FR in the nearly 6 years I have been here.
I have only voted non-Republican (not necessarily non-conservative) three times. Once was in a primary. Once was for state school superintendant (the Republican candidate was a Dem who became Republican to get votes. in this case the Dem who was running was actually more conservative.) Once against John McCain I voted for the Libertarian. Honestly, are there many Democrats that could be worse than John McCain? All three times, the candidate I supported lost. Of course, I have been called a troll and disruptor for mentioning this on other threads.
"Whatever the reason thats the reality."
Why doesn't our movement try to CHANGE the reality? It's as if terms like "initiative" and "thinking outside the box" are considered obscene in some circles.
Good post. I appreciate your reasonable perspective and hope it can have a calming affect on the debate here.
Yep, I could have voted in that election i turned 18 in july of that year but didnt vote at all, but I would have voted for Perot. I liked GHWB but the quote did really hurt Bush, the MSM was pretty much unchecked back then, well it was WAY before I started using the internet. :)
Someday a third party will rise up. I don't know how to break the stranglehold on the two party system, but I'm very interested. Perhaps the new Conservative party should be a PAC first and then try to morph into a party. I don't know. When it happens it will be historic, but we've seen historic things happen -- impeachment of Clinton, democrats turn against the country...
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.