Posted on 02/05/2007 4:55:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson
When the members of the Republican party betray the sound conservative principles of its founders and its own longstanding party platform and then vote in a leader whose personal beliefs and public record are more in line with those of the degenerate socialist Democrat party, then obviously the Republican party is sliding to the left. When large numbers of the members of a conservative party enthusiastically (you might even say overzealously or militantly) campaign for a social liberal and against sound conservative principles and candidates, then they are pushing the conservative principles, conservative candidates and conservative members out the exit doors.
Should the large number of members militantly campaigning for a socialist liberal for the presidency win out, and the only choices presented to the electorate by the two major political parties both share identical immoral socialist liberal ideologies, and the voter is left with voting for a socialist or a socialist, then obviously the resultant elected government will be a socialist government.
When the Republican Party abandons its conservative principles and abandons its fight against encroaching socialism, then obviously it is no longer a conservative party and we no longer have a major party fighting for traditional American values and against socialism.
When the American people abandon their longstanding traditional conservative family values and instead openly embrace socialism and perverted lifestyles, then America has moved left and is obviously no longer a traditional conservative nation.
When and if the American people abandon their traditional Judeo-Christian morality and traditional American conservative values, and instead opt for corrupt godless liberal/socialist immorality and perversion as the norm, then obviously America will have lost its way.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founding Fathers warned us that our style of Republican government would only work for a moral society. When and if we as a nation turn our backs on God and the nation abandons our American traditional Judeo-Christian morals and values, and rampant godless socialism takes over, the America of our Founders ceases to exist.
You can spin it, twist it, deny it, make a million excuses and logical explanations for why electing a social liberal at this time is a good idea, but you cannot deny the simple truth. A social liberal is a liberal and liberals begat liberalism. Liberalism begats socialism. Our nation was founded on the self-evident truth that our unalienable rights come from God. Socialists deny God exists. Socialists say our rights come from men in government robes. What men in government robes give, other men in government robes can take away. Without God we have no unalienable rights. No unalienable rights means no freedom. No freedom means no America.
To quote the former Secretary of Defense, "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want".
Let's get Rick Santorum to run!
And who is that? In other words, Hillary wins.
So, the article puts forward the "plan" of conservatives abandoning the field, picking up their ball and going home?
Not sure how effective that will be, but I'm pretty certain the Cindy Sheehans and Jane Fondas of the world would love it.
Rudy is going nowhere fast.
Hillary is scary because she carries some BS legitimacy that will be connected to her sleazy ersatz husband who did somehow not lead us all into destruction.
The media is her ally, and despite the medias abandonment of truth, justice, and the American way, they still wield a whole lot of clout among the unwashed.
I think Mitt will get the Republican nod, unless some unanticipated funding comes up for the legitimate good guys who are largely unknown still to the masses.
It's a question of going over the cliff at 100 mph or 50 mph.
It would be nice hear a major candidate discussing the brake pedal.
That's probably the reason Santorum was the Dems' top priority pelt.
Has the strategy of destroying something in order to save it ever worked?
I think it's partly because the lamestream media has become RABIDLY anti-conservative and will never allow another great conservative like Reagan to achieve national prominence.
You know, if you don't have your principles intact anymore & it's just "win at any cost" - then you still lose at the end of the day. Some of us aren't willing to go down so quietly.
The flood comes to mind.
Good and clever point.
Republicans are not the "conservative party", but they are the best thing currently standing between Hillary and the White House.
(God help us!)
"When the American people abandon their longstanding traditional conservative family values and instead openly embrace socialism and perverted lifestyles, then America has moved left and is obviously no longer a traditional conservative nation."
Sadly, at least in my life time, 'when' started with Carter and quite frankly continues today because true Conservative values are not center stage of what remains of the Republican party. We can blame the Liberals and should, but the failure to successfully take the fight to them belongs to us. We need another RWR, bad.
If Rudy/Romney is elected and carries out a conservative agenda, will you post a vanity saying you were wrong?
Social conservatism belong at the local and state level, your family, your community, your church. I believe that if you cut taxes, cut government, and promote national & border security, the social issues will take care of themselves. People aren't going to have abortions or use drugs.
Well, there are social liberals and then there are social libertarians. The former could be distinguished by their collectivist bent, the latter by the individualist one. Following von Hayek, one could submit that the dividing boundary between the leftists of all stripes and the conservatives proper happens to be collectivist/individualist, and not anything else.
You know, I think we are placing too much emphasis on "Hillary" - she is not the only enemy & in talking with some of the liberals I know, she is not their favorite candidate. That's a crazy strategy - to put all your chips on one card - most of the libs I know like Edwards & Obama - they hate Hillary.
The winning strategy is being true to our principles, anything else is a sure-fire loser.
I would disagree with you on one point -- Reagan didn't have the press on his side when he ran, either time. An articulate, attractive, positive conservative of national stature can speak over the press and connect with the American people. But who are the truly national conservative leaders? I can't think of any. Again, I think we've done a horrible job grooming new leadership.
Thanks for being a lightning rod in an ether full of stormy clouds.. ;-)
It seems many in Both parties are infected with this head-long rush to be joined together again with our European counterparts, forgetting why we broke away so long ago..
"So, the article puts forward the "plan" of conservatives abandoning the field, picking up their ball and going home?"
You must have been reading something I didn't see?
If we were to speculate between the lines.....I read that we need to stop promoting far left liberals and trying to sell them to Republicans.
In most cases going third party is little more than staying home, the outcome will be of as much value. ( none)
We need to stand up and see to it that people get a choice if they vote Republican. We can't have a liberal as our standard bearer.
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.