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!
If only the GOP leadeship took ALL these positions to heart, America wouldn’t be in the messits in now.
This is a very well defined doctrine of conservativism which few conservtives could take issue with.
McCain’s fatal problem in the election was not in being centrist. It was in not effectively fighting. He had only glancing blows from powder puffs to offer Obama. If McCain had flogged and flayed that flim-flam in the places where they differed substantially but Obama was busy pretending otherwise, we might not be going through this agony now.
The important thing is that we agree on a correct principle and we should work together.
- - - - - - - - -
I agree with that in THEORY. In Practice, however I have seen, particularly the LDS, use ‘common ground’ in politics as a way of promoting the LDS faith and an attempt to gain converts.
That bothers me.
The subject of who would lead the party and the conservative movement arose, and Mitt Romney’s name was among those mentioned favorably.
- - - - - - - - -
Then it looks like we have to start educating the TEA party people.
THANK you!!!
To me the candidate must have the following:
1. Pro Life
2. Understand and support the 2nd amendment
3. Lower taxes
4. Smaller government (Ideally govt should be about 1/3rd the size it is now)
5. Let failing businesses (especially newspapers)fail
6. Lower regulations
7. Not believe in man-made global warming
8. State rights
9. Pro vouchers in education
10. Freedom of speech and assembly especially for those speaking out against abortion
11. No amnesty
12. Seal the boarders NOW.
13. Protect our country from foreign invaders
14. Protect our country from domestic terrorists that wish to subvert the Constitution.
15. Stand up to the liberals/socialists/communists forcefully to groom another generation of conservatives.
Serious question. What is your list and who could meet it?
— - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do want to see who is coming up. I like Palin. If there are not “leaders” who meet these qualifications, there certainly are potential candidates at the grassroots level. We saw palin go from a nobody to a darling of conservatives in a couple of months, we can do that again.
But honestly, I haven’t seen very many decent names bantered about. We need to raise up some conservative leaders. My husband would fit that bill but he will only be running local this next election.
I agree 100% with your views now as I did in 1998 when I joined FR. Thank you for stating those views once again. We can’t hear them enough!
Yep..they cannot leave quietly and become like the Savior they say they follow.
- - - - - - - - -
Actually, Christ spoke out against the Pharisees, those who chose “religious practices” over Christ. I do the same.
Christians are called to defend the faith. That is what we do.
If as you claim Romney is now a “leader” in the TEA Party Movement...
Then I dont belong there...
- - - - - - - -
Me either.
Stick Romney up against most of these other folks and he’ll lose on merits.
For one who had been an insider, I would well think it’s a different perspective than one who has never walked through the door of a Mormon temple.
If the Mormons actually managed to produce a “clean living” presidential hopeful who walked the talk, and did not overtly involve his church in his politics, I wouldn’t count that as being any worse than a (Rabbinical) Jew or a Buddhist in the same situation — none are Christians but that is not the position they are being considered for.
Where are all the “clean living” Mormons when it comes to politics? They seem to be disturbingly easy to compromise, if not pulled clear over to the dark side.
- - - - - - - -
I honestly have no idea. I was VERY surprised at how many of my LDS friends supported Romney in spite of his record, JUST BECAUSE he was Mormon. There seemed to be an attitude that they could trust him just because he was LDS. And more than a few referenced the “white horse” prophecy in relation to him. I was also surprised at how many others rolled over because he presented a “family” image without looking at his record.
For many LDS, a candidate who is LDS trumps all other factors. Given a RINO who belongs to my denomination and a Conservative who is a member of a different Christian denomination (like Sarah) I will go conservative.
What I saw (and I know there are exceptions) was that my friends would vote for Romney rather than a Pentecostal (aka “gracer”) like Sarah Palin. Some told me that they did not vote for McCain/Palin because she was on the ticket. THAT shocked me.
Their tendency to roll over for Mitt (and he counted on it) shows that as much as they want to be lumped in with all other Christians, they still see themselves as apart from Christianity, IMO.
If the Mormons actually managed to produce a “clean living” presidential hopeful who walked the talk, and did not overtly involve his church in his politics
- - - - - - - - -
The problem is that person DOES NOT EXIST (other than maybe a “jack” mormon). For the LDS, the CHURCH (not Christ) is their life. You cannot vote to ‘sustain’ all the prophets and apostles every six months and then turn around and say “you can’t advise me on civic matters” (one of the fundamentals of following the LDS prophet is that he may adivse on civic matters). There is also a strong element of control by the leadership (even at the local level).
And for a Mormon that has been through the Temple? One of the oaths they are required to take is this:
You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
They take that oath VERY seriously. And will place it above the constitution if necessary.
And we are not electing a pope, but I do want to see someone that will not place ANOTHER ORGANIZATION above the Constitution as CIC.
And as soon as that came up, the candidacy would be effectively doomed. The MSM hates the Mormon church only a little less than “former day” Christians.
I remember reading of the brouhaha over JFK, the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate, who eventually said if he was in a pinch between Rome and presidential duties, he would step down.
My Friends, I am involved with Tea Party Boards and I can tell you that Mitt is NOT even close to being mentioned !!!! Get involved! Do not let the LDS scare tactics work there too!
NO MORE PANSY-A** RINO’S!
NO MORE PANSY-A** RINO’S!
NO MORE PANSY-A** RINO’S!
NO MORE PANSY-A** RINO’S!
FIND ‘EM, OUST ‘EM!
Guess who the pansy-reared RINO of the day is now... Jeb Bush!
Good luck with that.
I can honestly say, I was one of those 3,253 votes. And I’m damn proud of it!
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.