Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by 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?
???
Look, he can say what he wants now. He only becomes Yankee waffler. Tells the people what they want to hear. Real Leaders get behind a cause because they believe in it. That is how you lead.
If I wanted a President who would pander to the audience they were speaking to, I would vote for a Clinton.
Bull****!
We're about all things conservative to include national security. You one issue voters are annoying.
Anyone who is not a RINO.
“Rules?
Think that one over for a second...
Then, meekly, apologize to JR.”
You’re my kind of newbie. ;^) Welcome to FR!
What they should fear is what damage another Democrat controlled government will do to this country in even one short term.
I don't plan to vote for fear. I plan to vote for optomism, conservatism, and what is best for the country. I do not fear the battle, I only worry that we will not find the person who can lead the way.
Of all our candidates that are announced, none of them have shown they can lead the way. And the one some people tout as the "best leader" would lead us astray.
How did quidnunc lower the IQ of the forum? I haven't followed his posts.
Are you saying that Jim Robinson should Ban himself for once using the word coarsely, on his own Forum, in ejecting a Gun-Controlling Jack-Boot like Quidnunc?
Ban himself? Hardly.
As to banning quidnunc, or anyone else, I would like to know why, but that didn't prompt my question. JR owes no explanation, although I think it would help his site.
Profanity - that violates the forum rules, no?
No, respectfully, that's incorrect.
The Republic is based upon TheoNomic Principles (literally, "God's Law"), not TheoCracy (literally, "God is King").
It is both desirable and virtuous to seek the organization of Government according to a Biblical Theonomy -- a sacrosanct respect for Life, Liberty, and Property, according to an organization favoring Decentralization and Constitutionalism (exmaples from Deuteronomy and Daniel available on request).
But it is both dangerous and un-Biblical to seek any sort of Theocracy of Men until the Return of Jesus Christ. No mortal Man of Politics is properly qualified to be Theocrat, except for Him.
"We Have No King But Jesus" -- Calvinist War-Cry during the "Presbyterian Rebellion" as it was called in England (i.e., "The American Revolution" as it is called over here).
Best, OP
JFK’s speech in 1960 when he was being vilified and attacked because he was a Catholic (in case anyone is considering Mitt Romney’s candidacy for Pres but suspicious of Mormons):
“Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida—the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power—the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms—an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues—for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end—where all men and all churches are treated as equal—where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice—where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe—a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so—and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test—even by indirection—for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none—who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him—and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in—and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died—when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches—when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom—and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey—but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition—to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress—on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)—instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts—why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France—and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views—for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith—nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency—practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.”
If ‘rules’ don’t apply to me in my house, they sure don’t apply to JR here.
“One thing is certainly clear, FR is all about gays and abortions and NOTHING at all about national security.”
That’s pretty stupid - didja wake up on the wrong side of the computer desk this morning?
veronica wrote: “Where have I slimed Reagan?”
You slime Reagan’s memory by trying to tell this forum that he and Rudy are from the same place on the spectrum.
When confronted with factual evidence that the two men are as different as night and day, you then tell us that, well, it seemed that way to you when you worked in Reagan’s campaign.
How bloody lame can you get?
If you had indeed worked for Ronald Reagan, you would understand that the two men are nothing, NOTHING alike.
And that’s the main problem with you Rudynistas. You just make up stuff and try to fly it past this forum.
IT’S THE #$%* LIES, #$%* it!
We are sick to death of the lies.
Stop it!
For once and for all, get the following through your skulls:
Reagan and Rudy were/are NOT alike!
Rudy is NOT a conservative!
The american people do NOT dislike conservatives!
A conservative CAN and WILL win the GOP nomination!
The conservative GOP nominee CAN and WILL beat the ‘Rats in 2008!
I was tired, but the bigger issue to me was that our own president had accomplished a similar task earlier, that the backlash from that increase got us many tax decreases and a republican congress, and in the end it did not destroy the economy or our country.
Clinton did other bad things, like change the abortion regulations, and other regulations. The democrats passed a few other bad laws, but frankly they passed some bad things with Bush’s help in the previous two years.
My comment that they “accompished nothing” was I admit hyperbole, borne somewhat of exhaustion. I didn’t have time to add the words to qualify my statements about that or other things.
I think the country would be better off today with republicans in charge, but the democrats are having trouble screwing things up too much. If I thought democrats could accomplish things that would work and make people like them, I’d fear more, except the reason I oppose democrats is I know that what they want to do will NOT work.
You seem to be intentionally avoiding the fact that Giuliani is a liberal.
But as I said, I've read Peach's posts for many years and she NEVER used profanity.
Furthermore, she always been found on the reasoned side of any issue being discussed, IMO.
What some FRiends in here seem unable to understand is that some of us hate the Clintons with all our souls.
Since she has an 80% chance of becoming the next President...and her disgusting husband 'Ambassador to the World', why back another Robert Dole like candidate to run against them?
Once again, let me add this disclaimer. I AM NOT FOR RUDY! I AM ANTI-CLINTON!
Given the final choice of Hillary or "Person to be Named Later"...I'm voting for the latter.
You won't have to be raped or murdered, if you pick up a weapon and stand a post.
Don't worry about the Rudy vs Hillary match up the media is trying to set up. We need to get the candidates to speak of the issues. Then we all need to vote our conscience and let the best person win.
We have time. And there is no need to jump on a band wagon because the media says we should.
And how many of your 199 will become underclass drains on the society?
JulieAnnie was SOOOOO liberal,,,that the Republicans wouldn’t even invite him to their Convention in ‘96.
I did not include it, because most all the candidates are not making it a issue. As far as I can tell, it is off the table.
In fact, the only time I see the 2nd amendment mentioned, in relation to the election, is by small groups attacking one candidate or another on the Conservative side. This same group attacked both Rudy and Romney....The group is conservative, and it is party infighting, not National politics.
That's why I did not mention it. It has nothing to do with the upcoming election. It is part of the primary battle on the right and I doubt it will have legs into the General.
Guns are not as big of a issue Nationally, but this latest killing spree at VT may well change this. I would hope not.
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.