8mm
Posted on 10/28/2007 3:07:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The purpose of Free Republic is to fight for our freedom, for the constitution, for conservatism and for our traditional American heritage. We recognize that the domestic enemy of freedom is liberalism and big government socialism.
We recognize that our unalienable rights come from God not man or government and, no, they are NOT open to debate or subject to negotiation or compromise.
Sorry, RINOS, but the right to Life is our first unalienable right. This is not just a conservative political "principle" that stubborn right wing fringe nuts refuse to give up. It's an UNALIENABLE right granted to all men by GOD and no man or government can deprive us of same! Not without one hell of a fight!! Compromisers be damned!!
Beat me to it, good job. B4DH.
No contraception?
You think that there should be laws forcing people to have children against their will by banning contraception?
The death camp wants us to think that ASSISTED suicide and abortion with tax payer dollars is affordable... which is not.
They also want us to think that life is shameful. Sick perverts.
Against their will? People practicing contraception have no will, that’s the whole point. It’s not as affordable as people would think it is.
... and the sister to contraception is masturbation, pornography, prostitution and all sorts of “human” ills resulting from yielding to torture like feelings and hostage situations.
Will is of a spiritual nature. It seems like no big deal, but spiritualy it erodes and teaches one to surrender too easily to pressures, domestic and foreign. Hence our current lack of will and “feelings” of shame in anything wholesome like family, defense of the territory etc...
The candidates below don’t believe that the right to life is God-given and therefore unalienable. They mistakenly believe that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to live. They’re the modern equivalent of Stephen A. Douglas in 1858:
-
I have a question for you. Would you be in favor of a global government that would ban abortion for everyone in the whole world?
“Due to divided interest and attention of the Republican base I fear we are about 100 days away from having Rudy Giuliani as our nominee. It is going to be the darkest of times for Conservatives because of the lack of cohesion early in this primary process.”
I just opened an e-mail I received pertaining to this. Since I did not ask permission to post, the author will remain anonymous. It expresses my sentiments exactly:
“It is my opinion that the GOP consists of two main groups:
Partisan Republicans
Conservatives
Partisan Republicans: The only criteria for the PR’s is that the “R” candidate be percieved as having the capability to defeat the “D” candidate. This perception is driven by the media and polls.
PR’s will endorse, fund and vote for any candidate that has an “R” after their name for the purpose of defeating the candidate that has a “D” after their name.
Whether the “R” candidate has been a consistent conservative, like Duncan Hunter, or a liberal, like Giuliani and Romney or has sponsored unconstituional legislation, like McCain and Thompson, is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is th at the “R” is perceived as being capable of defeating the “D” in the general election. Again, that perception is based on media marketing and poll results.
Giuliani’s liberal policies, sanctuary status for illegals and blatant disregard for the second amendment on gun control as Mayor of New York are irrelevant if he is perceived as being capable of defeating the “D”.
Thompson’s disregard for the first amendment as a sponsor of McCain-Feingold and support of Spencer Abraham’s immigration policies (see NumbersUSA) are irrelevant if he is perceived as being capable of defeating the “D”.
Romney’s liberal policies and disregard for the second amendment on gun control as Governor of Massachusetts are irrelevant is he is capable of defeating the “D”.
McCain’s disregard for the first amendment as a sponsor of McCain-Feingold and attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens asa a sponsor of McCain-Kennedy are irrelevant if he is perceived as being capable of defeating the “D”.
Conservatives have two criteria. The candidate must have a record of adherence to the US constitution and must represent consistent conservativism. Conservatives will fund, endorse and vote for the most conservative candidate for the purpose of defeating the liberalism of the Democrat.
The adherence to the constitution and consistent conservativism of the “R” candidate is critical to principled conservatives. It’s not about Republicans defeating Democrats - this is about conservativism defeating liberalism.
The only conservative I trust to adhere to the constitution while defeating liberalism is Duncan Hunter. Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain have sponsored unconstitutional legislation and have failed to demonstrate consistent conservativism on critical issues.”
Duncan Hunter has at least as many anti-conservative demerits as Fred Thompson.
Not the same ones, mind you, but whereas Fred Thompson has disavowed the most egregious of his slips, the misbegotten CFR, Duncan Hunter remains an unapologetic big-government statist.
Sorry, but I’m not a big government statist. Nor am I a big-nanny government shill like Huckabee. I put a pox on both types of big-government shills.
When you lump Fred Thompson in with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, you succeed in only one thing: revealing yourself to be an unprincipled partisan for Duncan Hunter. You’ll need more credibility than you have earned with these kinds of shenanigans to cut ice with me or most of my friends.
Would pro-choice women vote for a politician who announced he wanted to make abortion illegal? Would black voters ever support a politician who wanted to bring back segregation? Would muslims ever support a candidate who was on the record as saying islam was evil?
Let me repeat:
AwesomePossum:
...read the 2004 Republican Party Platform...
Party platforms are sops for saps and peanuts for peons.
Keep preaching it brother, standing on the Truth is the ONLY way we can survive. May I add “political parties be damned”.
Which is why I wrote:
Some around here seem to think that the Founding Fathers did not intend for ANY PART of the Bill of Rights to be binding to the state governments.
Obviously the First Amendment specified Congress, the others don't.
As I pointed out previously, the Second Amendment would be meaningless if the Founding Fathers had allowed for the possibility of every state taking it away, same with the Third Amendment.
Amendments Four, Five, Six and Eight all address criminal proceedings. Nearly all criminal proceedings are at the state level and not federal (and this was even more true two centuries ago); were these rights only binding at the federal level, they really wouldn't have meant much.
Capital Punishment for the guilty did exist when unalienable rights were asserted. It is implied that the persons involved have a right to life if they are innocent.
The 14th amendment links the due process and equal protection clauses, and there is room for exempting the authentically incompetent from capital punishment.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
INDEED!
But the culture of death oriented humongous government globalist socialists communists
are intent on reducing the world’s population to 200,000,000-500,000,000 depending on what sources one reads . . .
for the children . . . no . . . errr . . .
for the environment . . . the snail darters and horned toads of the world.
Clueless idiots, all of them. As Scripture warns about our era . . . giving up the worship of God THE CREATOR for worship of the creature, the environment. What a deadly, dead-end hellish philosophy, religion that results in!
Thank you Jim for being a strong advocate for Life and for FR which helps to make a little sense in a nutty world.
There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the common law adopted from England, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
Your statement saying certain candidates do not believe that the right to life is unalienable, and then including FRed Thompson’s name, is a distortion, and perhaps, an outright lie.
FRed’s position is based on the Constitution itself. His personal position is anti abortion.
Please make yourself aware of the below, then retract your attack on FRed’s good name.
“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=831
Thank you Mr. Robinson!!!!!!!!!!!
You tell ‘em Jim!
Ditto all of that. I could not vote for Mitt without feeling much worse than "not good" about it, but I will reluctantly do it if he's the candidate. But OTOH I will never vote for a RINO who is as liberal on social/moral issues as Rooty. However, unless all of us who feel that way unite behind one acceptable alternative to Rooty or Mitt our votes will be split among several hopeless candidates and either Rooty or Mitt WILL be the GOP nominee by a plurality of the vote.
Personally I would like to see Hunter win the nomination, but at this point his chances are nil and his poll numbers are stuck in the low single digits and not moving. It's now time to get behind the only candidate who can be called reasonably conservative and can actually win nomination. We must become realistic and admit that our favorites are not going to make the cut and solidify behind the only acceptable candidate who can defeat Rooty/Mitt, and it is now crystal clear, to me anyway, that that man is Fred Thompson.
Thompson would not be my first choice by any means if a more conservative candidate was realistically in the running. But he is acceptable, and "acceptable" appears to be as good as we can hope for this time around. Acceptable doesn't mean that I agree with everything he has done in the past or probably would do if elected, but I think any conservative would have to admit that Thompson is a far better choice than either Rooty or Mitt. There's also the real possibility that Thompson would pick Hunter for his VP, thereby consolidating the conservative vote and also setting him up to be the GOP presidential nominee after Thompson's term(s).
It's time for conservatives of all stripes to get realistic and get behind Thompson or we will be facing a choice between Hillary or Rooty, and IMHO that would guarantee that Hillary will be the next president.
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.