Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!

Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.

I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.

Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.

I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!

We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.

We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.

We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.

We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!

And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.

And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!

Um...I really don’t care about you or your tag line and the fact that you need to call the usual Mormon-hating loon patrol, is kinda proof that there really is something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe you’re feeling a little fragile after your hissy fits.

(Geez, what a wanker)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

ROFLMHO. You call me names, call me a loon and THEN turn around and say *I* am the one who is having ‘hissy fits’. Look in the mirror. You are coming unglued over this.

FWIW, I do not hate Mormons. I have several friends who are still LDS. I do however hate Mormon DOCTRINE and Practice.

And I will never apologize for speaking out against the LDS church that attempts to hijack Jesus and nullify His sacrifice.

I didn’t need to call in anyone. I pinged several others who have also been called names to point out that ONCE AGAIN it is the Mittbots that are the most vicious with the name calling.

And really, “wanker”? Does your Bishop know you use such language?

Oh, wait...we'll never know because no Third party candidate has ever been elected and won't be in the foreseeable future. Oh, well, all the better to trash Republicans.

Better be careful about exporting your vast political ignorance. (Not much better than your name-calling vocab).

I mean what? Do you think Republicans have been around since the onset of this country? Simply put, many Whigs defected to the Republican party in the 1850s...thereby the Republican party became the replacement party to the Whigs as the second party.

Just because a candidate cannot get beyond Third Party status...
...hasn't translated historically into preventing a Third Party from superceding the Second Party. The birth of the Republican party thereby assured the death of the Whig party.

I'm sure all the candidates from the Third parties will be pure and never compromise in Washington's political firing range.

Well, we can sure "be glad" that the Republican party had some pure social agenda objectives in 1856 (even if the candidates weren't 100% "pure" in its tactical strategies).

And what was at the foundational core of that fledgling party’s social agenda? (why in 1856 they said they would take on the “twin relics of barbarism.”)
And what were those “twin relics?” (slavery & polygamy)
And did they indeed take them on? (Yes)
And how many years did that take them? [Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation within a decade...even though the remnant of slavery lived on culturally; the feds finally got the Mormon church to cave in on polygamy 34 years later, even though mainstream lds polygamist unions continued into the early 1960s and additional (new) LDS plural unions continued at an approximate rate of 11-12 a year through 1910.]
And did the Republicans stop opposing polygamy en masse even when the LDS church formally caved in 1890? (No. When the Utah LDS voted in a polygamist Democratic would-be Congressman named B.H. Roberts in 1898, they sent two-dozen banners with 7 million signatures to congress, saying they didn’t want Congress to seat Roberts, who took a third wife around 1894...AFTER the LDS manifesto. Congress then sent Roberts home).

Of course, perhaps, Deb, you'd accuse those 7 million banner-signers too high of a commitment to "purity," eh? And perhaps, Deb, you'd be telling us if we were all around in the late 1890s, "I'm sure all the candidates from any emerging Third parties will be pure and always keep from adding a simultaneous second & third wife and never compromise by adding additional wives in Washington's political firing range."

And really, “wanker”? Does your Bishop know you use such language?

But WAIT!!

There's MORE!!!

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982

"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65

spencer kimball "Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196

"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.

kimball "I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965

"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155

"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.

By the way you are aware that the governors of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alaska have equal standing as “experts” in the referenced organization?

Speaking of 'experts'...

....Words of Wisdom from one of MORMONism's late Prophets:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

Please don’t use my post as a springboard for you diatribe against the Mormon Church, do your business elsewhere, and don’t forget to wash your hands after you are finished. My point was that three people (namely Barbour, Jindal, and now Plain) that are listed for as experts for the National Council are people mentioned for the next presidential campaign and whom I would support.

I also said I thought the stated goals for the National Council were worthy of support/discussion by members of this forum and asked if there was a preferred alternative to the National Council for us to become involved. My questions were why are real experts not listed for these areas of consideration, I mentioned the Heritage Foundation as one possible source and Steve Forbes comes to mind as a consultant on economic matters. I am interested in the stated of the National Council and was hoping it could be on this forum, I am not interested in insults, petty bickering or personal vendettas.

____________________________________________________________

Our National Panel of Experts:

Governor Haley Barbour
Governor Jeb Bush
Governor Bobby Jindal
Senator John McCain
Governor Mitt Romney

May 4 - Cantor Announces Governor Palin to Join National Council for a New America Panel of Experts

1. Economy: Real Solutions for Economic Recovery
2. Healthcare: Building a 21st Century, Patient-Centered System
3. Education: Preparing Our Children to Succeed
4. Energy: Solutions for Energy Independence
5. National Security: Defending American Liberty and Freedom

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.