Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.
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!!
We bow to no king but God!
Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!
Do NOT Tread on US!
Thank you very much!
Please tell me what the definition of “rebel” is, point me to the post where JR makes it perfectly clear....I’m asking a simple question, why do you want to be argumentative about it........and don’t say I disagreewith conservative deals, I am asking a simple question, no one wants to answer it, everyone wants to jump on their high horse, just show me the post where it is explained so I can find the answer,,,,,,,,
Paulson & Giethner had lots of private sector experience too. And with his other liberal positions, I'd want a much more careful autopsy of Romney's private sector experience before thinking it means any more than does Warren Buffets or George Soros experience as far as being conservative credentials.
Oh, come on! I gave you a link with all the details and facts. If you scan down a few posts, you'll find links to all the amendments. The facts are part of the congressional record. But instead of acknowledging the truth, you come out with yet another unfounded slur -- calling DH a thief. That's really pathetic, IMO.
I assume, and Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, that Jim intends to rebel (this is used as a verb here) against the RINOs and if necessary the entire GOP who are attempting to redefine conservatism as meaning something totally contrary to conservatism and in the process finalize the transformation of the GOP into a clone of the Democrat Party.
As far as "what else is out there", we don't need anything else, genuine conservatism succeeds every time it's tried (Goldwater DID NOT run as a genuine conservative in 1964, he ran as a pro-defense, fiscal conservative). "What else is out there" is what the GOP tried in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008 and to a degree in 2000 and 2004, it has occasional fleeting success, but is generally a dismal (and very expensive) failure.
Why are you asking me for the definition of the word “rebel?”
So once again I ask HOW DOES FR PLAN TO REBEL?????? What is the plan???? March on washington, paint signs, WHAT??? Can SOMEONE answer the question??? Everyone is just beating around the bush here,, define REBEL.
Many of our posters have never read the U.S. Constitution. Many have never taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Many have never read, Atlas Shrugged, the Communists' Manifesto, or Hayek's, Road to Serfdom. I could go on, but won't.
I guess that's why you have to state what this site believes in and what we stand for every two or three years. Heck, we are growing each and every day. Some posters young, some are old. Each newbie needs to understand why you started this site in the first place.
Thanks for the reminder to all, and everything you and John do every day.
May the Lord bless you and your family abundantly.
Eagles Up!
5.56mm
*********************
I don't understand what you mean by this, restornu. I confess I don't care for profanity, either, but there are times when many of us are hard-pressed to find more appropriate words, and as women we might recognize that we are different from men.
I believe the word in question has to to with a site whose initials are "W" and "A", hence the word to which you object. There are times it may be more important to listen to what someone is saying and not the words with which they say it.
You gave me a link to a post of yours making claims with zero evidence to back it up. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
At least Romney doesn’t pal around with home-grown America-hating terrorists and racist America-hating preachers.
- - - - - - - - - - -
No, but his grandfather did....
Up until the 1930’s (when Mitt’s Grandfather went through the LDS Temple), the LDS were required to take an “oath of vengeance” on Americans for the death of Joesph Smith. There was a strong sense that the ENTIRE US was guilty of his death (he actually died in a gunfight).
Furthermore there are many quotes by their early leaders that show a real hatred and desire for destruction of the United States.
Oath of Vengance:
... Brigham raised his hand and said, “I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.” ... Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation (The Confessions of John D. Lee, p.160).
About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant.... In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs (”Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,” December 6, 1889, pp.205-206).
Elder Kimball showed the right fashion for a leaf, spoke of Elder Richards being protected at Carthage Jail, having on the robe, while Joseph and Hyrum and Elder Taylor were shot to pieces, said the Twelve would have to leave shortly, for a charge of treason would be brought against them for swearing us to avenge the blood of the anointed ones, and some one would reveal it and we shall have to part some say between sundown and dark.…and I have covenanted, and never will rest nor my posterity after me until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth. (Journal of William Clayton).
Increase McGee Van Dusen, who later left the LDS stated: “We are required to kneel at this altar, where we have an oath administered to the effect, that we will, from this time henceforth and forever, use our influence to murder this nation, and teach it to our posterity and all that we have influence over, in return for their killing the Prophet Joseph. They say the murdering of Smith is a national offense. It is true that all was not personally engaged in the act; but the nation has long winked at the abuse of the Mormons, and in this way they have encouraged mobs from time to time, until they have finally taken the life of the Lord’s Prophet, and now it is the will of the Lord, that the nation should be destroyed; and this is his will, that we shall enter into this secret conspiracy against the Government, &c., for the above reasons and many more given.”
Richard K. Fox wrote “We were then made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, the martyr, together with that of his brother, Hiram, on this American Nation, and that we would teach our children and children’s children to do so. The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment (Mysteries of Mormonsim).
The attitude of many LDS at the time shows antagonism toward the United States:
Heber C. Kimball wrote: “James Buchanan now occupies the chair of state. He and his counsellors, his coadjutors, his cabinet, and Congress have met and planned the destruction of this people—of brother Brigham and his associates in particular; and the priests of the day say amen to it; and they exhort the people to say amen to it; and the whole people of the United States are under condemnation. They consented to the death of Joseph, Hyrum, David, Parley, and lots of men, women, and children. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 5, page 253).
“The order of God’s church and kingdom is the strongest government ever known on this earth, and if the people of this great nation entertain any fears of the consequence or effects of such a government, why, I ask, don’t you of the nation, you of Congress, you of the Cabinet, if you please, embrace this order of government and establish it over the nation! You can do it. You can repent of your sins, every one of you, and be baptized for a remission of them. You can adopt and extend this strong government which God has established in these mountains, and if you will do it, God will establish you and the government and this nation never to depart from before His face; and you shall be made the means of helping to bring everlasting righteousness—the millen[n]ium—upon this land, and of causing the Spirit of God to rest down upon all flesh. Is it not worth your while to engage in a thing of this kind? But, ah! The terrible fact exists that the blood of the prophets is upon this nation, although the nation has not shed their blood, yet a sovereign state permitted it, and the nation have not washed their hands from it. (Apostle F.D Richards, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 26, page 345).
Apostle Orson Hyde wrote the following: “The blood of Joseph and Hyrum was shed—mingled too with the blood of brother Taylor, who survived, and who is here a living witness to the facts that occurred in connection with their death. Has the nation atoned for that blood? No. Have they offered to do it? They never have. But if one poor scamp should happen to be killed in this country, in this region, the whole of the United States are ready to fly to arms to avenge the blood of that individual, that never was worth the powder and lead to kill him. But the Prophets of God that are inspired of the Almighty to do a work for the benefit of the human family can be killed, and no man lay it to heart. Oh, it is all very well: to be sure, it was an outrageous deed to murder them when they were in the hands of the law—when they were held as prisoners; it was a horrid act: at the same time, we are glad it is done. That is the feeling, and the universal feeling almost throughout the United States. There was hardly a man, woman, or child that did not assent to the death of Joseph and Hyrum, but objected to the way in which it was done. “It is not exactly honourable or pleasing, but we are glad of it anyhow.” That is the sentiment of the nation, and by that very sentiment they have drawn upon themselves the anger of God; and that blood has to be atoned for, and it has to be atoned for upon all those that have said, We are glad of it!—that have secretly said so and cherished that idea. It will extend to them all who have consented to the death of the Prophet of God. Now, says the Lord, “To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations.” Did Joseph Smith overcome, even unto death? Yes. Was God with him? Yes, he was. When they were about to cut off his head, behold, the power of the Almighty came down, and the men stood as it were like marble statues: they could not move, but stood there like Lot’s wife—not pillars of salt, but pillars of petrified corruption. The power of the Almighty came down with the vivid glare of lightning’s flash, and they had no power to take his head off. Was God with him? Yes. Was his death glorious? Yes. What was his glory? One portion of it is—”To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations.” A portion of his honour and glory will be to enforce his word and see it take effect among the people and nation that have said, We are glad that he is killed! They cannot avoid it by going through death. They will have to be arraigned under the government and jurisdiction of their murdered victims. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, p. 154)
I never intend to winter in the United States except on a visit. We do not owe this country a single sermon. We calculated to go all the while, for I do not intend to stay in such an Hell of a Hole and if this be your mind, signify it by saying Hie—which was loudly responded to by the assembly—they are continually accusing us of stealing their horses and cattle. I wish some of the brethren would steal and kill them. (On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861, Vol. 1, p73).
Because you keep telling me that is what JR is going to do, I want to know what the plan is??? March on Washington, paint signs, make phone calls.....define rebel as it relates to FR.
On that topic
Can the right out-cuss the left?
I think crude and vulgar language does nothing to advance the cause. Regardless of who uses it.
Well said.
I have not told you what JR is going to do. Get a grip.
“NOBODY is perfect. Even Duncan Hunter”
I could say the same thing about Romney, or Giuliani, but won’t. Maybe you can help me out here. I remember Hunter being involved in hearing during the Clinton era, here is one appearance on Judicial Watch Jun 17, 2000 http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2000/561.shtml . I don’t remember Hunter falling on his face as publicly as Fred Thompson, but it seems they both made a lot of noise but did little else ... it seem to be a Republican malady. Could you refresh my memory on how this played out, maybe Hunter did all he could.
I keep asking you WHAT has he made clear and you keep dodging the question. WHAT IS THE PLAN????
I think you have a very clear understanding of what you read.
Read his posts. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t understand what he’s saying.
Aah .. very good. Restraint under duress = the mark of a very good soul.
That does NOT, however, mean withholding articulate, non-vulgar infuriated agitation and disgust with congresscritters... ;)
To the moon, Nancy !
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.