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

Refer to Romney's Council for a New American Socialist State formed in HIS Image ^ | May 2, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[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!

[Tennessee Nana]

Got up to here...

Romney is UNACCEPTABLE

Selah...

[Graybeard58]

good grief, this subject was beaten to death before the 2008 election.....I am sure JimR made his views known then.

Pre primaries, primaries, post primaries, post election, numerous times.

[reaganaut]

Rebel.

Is that a verb or a noun?

;-)

- - - - - - - - -
VERB! ;)

[AKA Elena]

I respectfully submit that we collectively had better start getting behind some candidates local, state, and Federal to support for the next election. Until we back successful candidates we will be stuck with Republicans who are a disappointmentt to us!

We have been able to do great things on FreeRepublic or through her, in the past.
The time to make our framework for action is Now ... not a year from now.

This thread has deteriorated somewhat ... this creates divisions.

I cannot see what might be irreconcilable differences, although they may be present ... we still need to figure how we can get a power group to have a say when the time comes.

We, who believe in Jim's principles must strengthen ourselves for the fights that lie ahead through prayer, logic and casual conversations with anyone who will listen.

The discontent is so widespread, the time is ripe to sow the seeds of value we need. We have to nuture those seeds to generate like values among those who are wandering.

Just an expression of oft thought thoughts!

[Kent C]

Yet another reason to overthrow the liberal media mavens and their RINO syncophants

I agree and bringing that up made me wonder if there is anything that could be done within the conservatives serving and the actual conservative journalists/anaylists/consultants where the boycott NBCCBSABCCNNNYTWP etc. in the same way that the Dem Prez candidates boycotted Fox for debates. It seems like us not watching or reading is effective or as effective as is necessary.

Could we bring pressure to bear on those people to stop helping create an 'impression of bipartisanship' by appearing on those media?

I know they'd still get their David Brooks, Peggy Noonans, David Frums, McCains, Snowes, Collins, et al. but what if some of the actual conservative Senators and Representatives stopped appearing and made a 'big news media event' of it on Fox, and boycott the MSM for future debates.

I also understand that it may seem to be political suicide for some and perhaps that argument has validity but something has to be done to get out of the head lock that the MSM has on candidates and also on their audience. They picked 'our' candidate this last time as well as theirs and neither Hillary nor McCain/Palin stood a chance, really.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Now there is nothing wrong with your photo! And your wife is lovely....no, I’m talking about a couple of female freepers who continually post photos of models claiming them to be their own - Surely they don’t think we are all so stupid as to see pictures of 4 or 5 DIFFERENT women and think they are all the same one? lol I guess some of the dumber men fall for it......

[GreyMountainReagan]

Chaffetz is excellent so far. Bishop is good.

Huntsman? Romney? Pathetic

[eyedigress]

You are one lucky guy. Congrats

[Skenderbej]

At least you’re honest and you’ll give a reason to your objections to Mormons in office. There are many here who are anti-Mormon, but fail to give reasons beyond theological disagreements with Mormons while ignoring disagreements they have with other faiths.

I find it unfortunate that many Freepers view Mormons in the same light as Muslims (sans the murder aspect) instead of accepting them as a large conservative voting block. You don’t have to agree with their religious views, but ignoring the way they vote seems somewhat irresponsible to me.

[Antoninus]

In other words, I think they’re far less likely to merely take their ball and go home of their own accord.

No, they won't. They're trolls every bit as bad as the DU types. They are going to need to be evicted.

[reaganaut]

Please tell me what the definition of “rebel” is, point me to the post where JR makes it perfectly clear...

- - - - - - - — -
“rebel” is rebel. Have you ever considered that since this site is closely watched and open for public viewing we may not want/need to show all of our cards this soon?

Keep ‘em guessing, then attack.

[Squantos]

:o)

BTTT !

Awesome ...........!!!

[eyedigress]

[reaganaut]

You don’t have to agree with their religious views, but ignoring the way they vote seems somewhat irresponsible to me.

- - - - - - - - -
Thank you for your level headed comment.

One thing I will say about the LDS (positive) is their ability to be consistent when voting as a bloc. This got them in trouble in the early days in MO, IL and OH, as well as some problems out in “deseret” (now Utah, parts of AZ, CA, NV), but even now, as shown by Prop 8 in CA, when they choose to vote a certain way they do so almost unanimously. That can work for the Conservatives.

[GreyMountainReagan]

“when they choose to vote a certain way they do so almost unanimously. That can work for the Conservatives.”

---

That can also work for America. Just hope we (Americans) vote Conservative.

[scripter]

ping

[reaganaut]

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.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Resty gets upset with words she perceives as foul. I understand, I get upset with foul language as well.

But Resty apparently has a different standard of “foul” than many of us. She got very upset over the scriptural definition of “filthy rags” the other day.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2235421/posts?q=1&;page=751#796

[Skenderbej]

Agreed. I just find myself chagrined much of the time here of Freerepublic when conservatives can’t come together on conservative issues because of religious differences. If an atheist is pro-life and small government and a Catholic is pro-abortion and big government, I knock doors with the atheist, no matter our differing religious beliefs. He came to the conclusion that killing babies is wrong for his reason, and I look to Christ for mine. The important thing is that we agree on a correct principle and we should work together.

Religious discussion is great in the religion forums or where it pertains to the issue at hand, but too often it’s the divider when we should be coming together. I’m not saying that the Mormons are the control-all in dividing the conservative movement, but if we ostracize enough small groups, our vote will be fractured enough to ensure defeat.

All that being said, I don’t believe that the current power of two parties is healthy for our nation.

/rant

[Liberty Valance]

bttt

[WFTR]

I stood against Mr. Bush as well in 2000, and I took a great deal of grief here on FR for writing about his weaknesses. Those who supported him seemed to think that they had license to cast insults. I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only one with concerns.

I agree that FR objections may have played some part in Rudy Giuliani's loss, but if he had campaigned in New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina, the race would have been very different. While I hate how much influence the early primaries have, the reality is that no one wins a nomination without an early primary or caucus win. Rudy Giuliani was wrong for the party, but tactical mistakes were as big as ideological issues in denying him the nomination.

I was at a meeting with some TEA Party folks a little over a week ago. The subject of who would lead the party and the conservative movement arose, and Mitt Romney's name was among those mentioned favorably. Others included Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, and Eric Cantor. Strangely enough, Bobby Jindal isn't seen as highly favored as one would think here in Louisiana. If you're expecting the TEA Party movement to coalesce around hatred for Mr. Romney, you're fooling yourself. If you start kicking out TEA Party people who like Mr. Romney or have a generally positive feeling towards him, you're going to lose much of the TEA Party movement.

The GOP lost votes of some people by picking Sarah Palin to appeal to conservatives. While I think those who voted against the ticket because of Sarah Palin showed horrible ignorance and lack of judgment, their votes still counted as much as mine did. The GOP didn't ignore "us" in 2008, and the GOP still took the worst single-cycle loss that any party has taken in a long time. If "conservatives" define their objectives as dislike of Mitt Romney, both conservatives and Republicans will continue to lose. The conservative movement has to stand for something other than hating Mitt Romney. I hear what you say about smaller government, but the personal dislike of Mr. Romney seems to have the higher volume.

Bill