Posted on 05/22/2007 9:29:44 AM PDT by SittinYonder
"The Republican Party is falling apart," said one insider to me recently. "The GOP has become the party of neoliberal corporate globalism, not the party of conservatism," said another. Perhaps election 2008 will be the last hurrah. Other than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, the GOP presidential candidates are a joke. The rest are all neoliberal, interventionist globalists.
Look how we've derailed..."
Iraq is a huge mistake, a neocon experiment in utopianism, and we are paying the price. Bush's foreign policy is not conservative. It is Wilsonian nation building. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. And it is because of the neocon war machine in the Middle East that we are hated.
If we really want to end terrorism in the U.S., then we should completely disengage from the Middle East. We should (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East, (2) end foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all immigration from the third world.
Many fail to realize it, but terrorism is more an immigration issue than Middle Eastern issue. If Seung-Hui Ch? had not been allowed to immigrate hither, the Virginia Tech massacre would not have happened. Three of the terrorists recently nabbed in New Jersey (plotting to attack Ft. Dix) were illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. from Mexico. And almost all previous terrorists, including those on Sept. 11, were either legal or illegal third-world immigrants.
As Jean Raspail said in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest piece of conservative fiction ever written," there is a third-world invasion of the West taking place. We are under attack. And we can either make a stand against the third-world hordes, or we can watch the West crumble.
We must address the problem now. We need deportations, attrition, employer sanctions, and all immigration (legal and illegal) to end from the third world.
But many seem not to care. Many politicians and corporations are supporting this invasion. Why? Either for cheap votes or to drive down American wages.
Failure to address this invasion not only is a dereliction of duty, but it is a form of treason. And many of the presidential candidates are guilty of treason? Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee - and let's not forget Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Traitors, ever last one of them.
And then there's free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. But the neocons / neoliberals have their heads in the sand, wanting to take free trade to its logical conclusion in some perverse suicide pact.
The Democratic Party, which in the 19th century was the conservative party while the GOP was the left-wing party, betrayed the U.S. decades ago. And now the GOP is going the same globalist route? neoliberal wars, mass immigration to drive down American wages, and suicidal free trade pacts.
Do not stand for this nonsense!
If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination, then vote third party. Refuse to support the neocon / neoliberal globalist machine. If the GOP continues down this path, it is doomed anyway and, hopefully, out of the ashes a true conservative party will arise, perhaps the Constitution Party or the America First Party.
Or perhaps a new party will form, hopefully one modeling itself after the British National Party, Front National, or Vlaams Belang - all conservative parties in Europe, and conservative in the true sense of the word: the conservation of Western man. Not the phony neocon nonsense we have in the U.S.
If Tancredo and Hunter are DU/Libertarian candidates, the GOP is lost.
If Seung-Hui Ch? had not been allowed to immigrate hither, the Virginia Tech massacre would not have happened.
In spite of the author’s passion, the piece comes off as an unfocused rant.
Tom Tancredo's positions are not extreme for the Republican Party. Of course they weren't. Now that George W. Bush - biggest government growth, ever! - and Rudy Giuliani and McCain are the party leaders, I guess you're right. Tancredo is extreme.
Yeah, but here and there are points worth discussing.
Sorry. The facts show otherwise. Protectionism is a far bigger danger. Also, this idea of a third party just plays into the hands of liberals and allows them to take over completely.
What is going on right now with the immigration issue shows that we do have power over elected officials when we get off our duffs and let them know.
What exactly is “conservative” about: high trade barriers, public ownership of businesses, large government budget deficits, or government subsidies for special interests? Those are all things neoliberalism is against — classical liberalism for that matter.
The term “liberal” doesn’t mean the same in the U.S. that it does elsewhere. (Or at least used to mean.) The term was co-opted by socialists in the U.S. Of course, the new American definition of “liberal” is spreading to the rest of the world — so it’s just a matter of time before no one remembers a time when being a “liberal” wasn’t all bad.
BTW, “liberal” and “libertarian” are not synonymous.
WhiteGuy,
That is a bit to drastic. First of all there will be Fred Thompson who has a good chance at getting the candidate. Please don’t go to far in thinking that those three are the only good picks. Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter are hard sells. Duncan Hunter lost 50 percent of his support this week according to Rasmussen Poll from 2 percent back to 1 percent. Mitt Romney would be a candidate that you might support also. I can understand Rudy, but McCain might be a great War President. The only thing I ask is that you don’t make such drastic choices until you really see who the candidate is going to be. Who knows maybe there is still someone out there that has not announced yet that we don’t know about.
Sincerely,
Bob
I’ve already made my choice.
Not that it’s any of your business anyway.
I agree, and that's where I diverge with Ron Paul.
I agree precisely. Feed them some of their own Chinese dog food.
We've got good candidates in the race this year, but Tancredo is the one who has the consistent, across the board conservative record.
And with this line, the credibility of this piece whirlpools down the the bottom of the toilet and is whisked away...
APf
Agreed!
I will be voting for either Tom or Duncan. Whom ever comes out ahead in the early Jan 2008 voting.
With this one sentence, Basil proves himself to be a mo-ron.
And the responder proves he knows nothing of history. Either that or a Claremont Institute follower. Pretty much the same thing.
The Democratic party of the mid 19th century, while not completely conservative, held closer to the ideals envisioned by the Framers. Meanwhile the Whig/Republicans were too busy pushing a national bank, internal improvements, and other nonsensical ventures put forward by ilk like Hamilton, that fool Clay, and his lackey Abe under the auspices of the 'American System'. As to the article
Bush's foreign policy is not conservative. It is Wilsonian nation building.
Can't be said loudly enough.
He left out Fred Thomposon or even Newt Gingirch who engineered the Contract with America.
Otherwise, I totally agree with him.
THe Republican Party has been betrayed by the Bushes, the McCains, the Giulianis, the Hegels, the Snowes, etc.
But his isolationism is a bit extreme.
The only thing I ask is that you don’t make such drastic choices until you really see who the candidate is going to be.
You know what, you seem very sincere, and I appreciate that.
But unless there is a drastic change, a 180 on a number of issues.........issues that have been made possible only by republican control of government for the past 6 years, I will be voting the Paul / Tancredo ticket regardless of who the gop candidate is.
Many will be able to over look some of these republican initiatives(credit Jim Robinson):
The war.
Failure to secure the borders.
Amnesty.
McCain-Feingold.
Big government.
Big spending.
Abortion.
Gay marriage/gay agenda.
Gun control.
Failure to protect private property.
Failure to abide by the constitution.
Failure to enforce the law.
Corruption.
Too many RINOs.
Lack of spine.
Loss of testicles.
Failure to run conservative candidates.
I will 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.