Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.

One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.

All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.

FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?

Do you really expect me to do that?

[gpapa]

Didn’t know that. Thanks.

[Kevmo]

bump for excellent treatise on rudy being a socialist

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Is this (below) the post you’re thinking of? It jumped out at me and I saved it. The Founding Fathers did the defining and left us to defend and to keep this Republic, if we could, FROM being re-defined.

---

< snip >

---

Yes, I confess. I am trying to change the definition hijacked by people who are using conservatism, not because of its roots or its core principles, but because a large percentage of conservatives are religious, and therefore vulnerable to this redefinition.

But again, I do not decry the RR, only what it wants our government to do, in spite of what most Americans want. The 109th Congress demonstrated that these social goals took precedence over all else, which explains of course why the Republican Party no longer leads the Congress.

Okay, you have effectively outed me once again to the forum founder and his chief lieutenant. If what you folks want is a forum, not of ideas, not of debate, but simply a lock-step acceptance of an agenda, so that you all can ditto each other, fine. There are a few hundred of us who regularly post here, who are challenging that kind of group-think. Simply ban us all, and you no longer have to listen to any thoughts not propounded by the founder.

Take care.
408 posted on 03/05/2007 6:20:57 AM PST by MACVSOG68 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795218/posts?page=408#408

[Skywarner]

"I'd say my politics are consistently conservative and speak to the goals and objectives of Free Republic as laid out by its Founder. Your politics appear to be coming from a different perspective then mine. Therefore, I sense you're feeling a bit uncomfortable and rightly so.

Because I don't agree with the tactics of the purge does not equate to my not being a conservative. Maybe it's a matter of degrees between you and me, and that's okay. That's what the human condition is all about. But, yes, I do feel uncomfortable when even fellow conservatives are being fed to the shredder for daring to speak up over the process that is already under way.

[wagglebee]

Some of us are loosing sight of the fact that we're in the middle of the opening act of a World War, and that we MUST prevail. There will be no second chances.

And the Rudy Rooters are perpetuating a BOLD FACED LIE in suggesting that Rudy has any of the qualifications needed to keep America safe.

In the mean time, the left's abortuaries are killing, on average, over 3500 American babies every single day and have been doing so for over 34 years. A trend which Rudy supports. Are we supposed to simply abandon this issue?

[GodBlessUSA]

I have no insecurities of what I stand for as a Conservative, all my life. Or my family who have been Military.

That said, I just want the best candidate who will support the Troops, our brave men and woman who defend this country. I prefer not to gamble and play games. I’m not staying home and not voting so I can feel good about 1 principal or 2, like the mid term elections. I don’t want the liberals, who will virtually alienate our Heros , if they win the White House. I’m being open minded in that. Many are not. I want Fred Thompson, time will tell. If it' Rudy, I will vote for him. He will not send our Heroes down the river. He will not alienate them. Liberals will. So for lack of principal or two, I'll vote Rudy if he wins the primary.

[MrEdd]

[Chena]

I have no insecurities of what I stand for as a Conservative, all my life. Or my family who have been Military.

That said, I just want the best candidate who will support the Troops, our brave men and woman who defend this country. I prefer not to gamble and play games. I’m not staying home and not voting so I can feel good about 1 principal or 2, like the mid term elections. I don’t want the liberals, who will virtually alienate our Heros , if they win the White House. I’m being open minded in that. Many are not. I want Fred Thompson, time will tell. If it' Rudy, I will vote for him. He will not send our Heroes down the river. He will not alienate them. Liberals will. So for lack of principal or two, I'll vote Rudy if he wins the primary.

Bravo!! Cutting off ones nose to spite ones face only leads to serious medical issues. ;)

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

Mark 5

[ansel12]

No the post by the banned freeper I was talking about was posted on the Darwin site, not here.

Here is the quote from an ex-freeper we all remember.

---

“””My time over there was always as an agent provocateur, and merely a hobby for me. I’m watching from a distance, now, because it amuses me to do so. I have no stake in what happens there, politically or otherwise. “””

[MrEdd]

/agree

[Skywarner]

" And the Rudy Rooters are perpetuating a BOLD FACED LIE in suggesting that Rudy has any of the qualifications needed to keep America safe.

In the mean time, the left's abortuaries are killing, on average, over 3500 American babies every single day and have been doing so for over 34 years. A trend which Rudy supports. Are we supposed to simply abandon this issue?"

Not at all. In fact, the issue should be raised whenever possible. I find abortion reprehensible and an affront to both God and to mankind. Nonetheless, this is all a moot issue if the Islamofascists defeat us.

Let's say we wake up tomorrow to find four major US cities with giant radioactive craters in them? We retaliate en masse, but make no mistake about it, the damage is done. The economy is decimated, and millions are dead. Rudy can fight the war against Islamofascism, and I certainly know that Clinton simply cannot (nor can any other of the Dems). Other Republican candidates can - especially Hunter and Thompson - but I think that even Kermit the Frog could do a better job than a Dhimmi Dem any day.

[Mom MD]

Hi
wonderful to meet another who shares the same illness!
I think we can share while we wait for our long arms. If I get mine anytime soon, everyone is invited over (but don’t hold your breath)

[wagglebee]

Who posted this? Do you have a link?

[sodpoodle]

Correction: to Post #13089
I wrote:
“””On another thread and there is confusion about Howlin being banned/suspended (which I caused).”””

It should have read:
I am on another thread where there is confusion(which I may have caused) about whether or not Howlin has been banned/suspended.

Needed adjustment because I want to live and raise my tomatoes for sammiches. Bloodshed is involved;)
sod

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

No stake?

Talk about abstract existentialism!

Patriot blood paid the price so that somebody could post that comment on soil that FR is trying to defend.

OTOH, could be sour grapes, too.

[Pinkbell]

I’m sorry haven’t gotten you the list yet. I haven’t seen Spiff recently. He may be busy tonight. I was able to track this down, however. It’s not a list of the judges, but it mentions how liberal many were.

Snip

“But most of Giuliani’s judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito — much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.

“I don’t think he was looking for someone who was particularly conservative,” added Barry Kamins, a Democrat who chaired the panel of the Bar Association of the City of New York, which reviewed Giuliani’s appointments. “He picked a variety from both sides of the spectrum. They were qualified, even-tempered, academically strong.””

Snip

“Giuliani cast himself in New York not as a conservative (he had actually run on the Liberal Party line) but as a reformer. Though at least 50 of his 75 appointees were registered Democrats (only six were registered Republicans), Giuliani also won praise for, some say, appointing fewer judges with ties to local Democratic politics than his predecessors.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html

[Reagan Man]

>>>>> .... yes, I do feel uncomfortable when even fellow conservatives are being fed to the shredder for daring to speak up over the process that is already under way.

Enough whining already!

JimRob has decided to get FR back on a more cosnervative track. You feel uncomfortable beasue don't agree with the direction the forum is headed. The people who are no longer around this forum, were to one degree or another, undermining the conservative goals of this forum. We are in the early stages of choosing the GOP nominee for president. With the 2008 election coming after that.

This is political war. Were's you thick skin? FReepers are on the frontline in the battle of conservatism versus liberalism. This is American politics and sometimes there will be casualties in war. You either accept the change, or move along.

[Kevmo]

my simple one-issue platform of who will best fight the global war against Islamofascism.
***Ok, then you should support Duncan Hunter. Rudy’s stance on security is laughable. Those hijacker murderers could have been enjoying sanctuary as illegal aliens in his city. Rudy has no military experience, unlike the LRRP Ranger with a Bronze Star who would absolutely COMMAND the respect of the troups rather than with for the betht tholution among friendth. And rudy is anti-militia, which is ironic because on that fateful day that made him so famous it was a quickly formed militia that brought down the plane intended for the white house. In one terrorist attack in NYC at the empire state building, rudy took that as an opportunity to call for even MORE gun control. If you support rudy because he’s so good on WOT, then it’s really a buncha baloney. He ISN’t so good on WOT.

[wagglebee]

Rudy can fight the war against Islamofascism,

What evidence do you have for this? Let's not forget that Rudy was mayor of NYC for seven and a half years before 9/11. He knew that the WTC was a target after the 1993 bombing and he also knew from that episode that the biggest problem with the WTC would be evacuation. And he made no effort to develop an evacuation plan.