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!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

You can go door to door..Not a problem...go for it.

[ejonesie22]

A mistake, but not nearly as big as one as Mitt's universal plan. Bush's plan was at least limited to seniors already in a government run system. not ideal, and not very successful but it hardly had the impact that Romneycare would have if it went nation wide as well, especially with its fines and mandates

Bush made many mistakes, and those have been alluded to and discussed here on FR from the top down. But on fundamentals (life, guns, God, etc.)he was and has been consistent.

Now how logical would it be that if Bush, whom we trusted to at least some extent, let us down in some areas that we in turn then move our support to a man who has PROVEN to be untrustworthy on not just the fundamentals, but on such issues as universal health care as well.

I understand what parallels you are trying to draw and why, but it is the ultimate non-sequitir really, apples and oranges. Mitt has a record the lets us know we can't trust him BEFORE we even give him a shot. If Bush had the same record leading into 2000 he would have never gotten the nod from conservatives.

Keep swinging, this is fun...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I never condemned you and your work. I just state the fact that you are “glued”. Whatever you want to preach is up to you. We allow all men the right to worship who, what..etc and we do the same. Not a problem. Go for it.

[greyfoxx39]

How do you know I don’t? And I can reach a whole lot more folks on FR. Thanks for the permission slip, though.

[ejonesie22]

I will quote a great philosopher, a student, if you will, of human nature to answer your question.

“Don't start none, won't be none”
-Agent “J” MIB

Seems that the patronizing tone, the attacks and such on Thompson, Hunter and others, as well as their supporters, the calling of “idiot” “Moron” etc. as well as such gems as calling Thompson's wife a whore and a stripper all emanated from the “Wholesome Team Romney” from the get go.

So yes, it is ironic to hear it's lead members in turn cry foul...

At least to this "ignorant hillbilly"...

[exit82]

Jim, thank you for the clarification.

I hope you will either post this explanation as part of FR’s home page or put a link to it.

FR is not for everyone, but it’s for me!

[rebapiper]

I honestly believe this was a test to see just how far they can push the American people and so far there doesn't seem to be anything that would motivate the American people to get up and fight for their country.
The halls of Congress are lined with nothing more then the worst, most dangerous low life criminals in this country. They have HYJACKED the country and their is nothing anyone can do, they now OWN every branch of Government.
The Framing Fathers allow for each state to form their own militia in order to stop a dictator or mafia take over.
Who is really running this country, the only thing this bozo
knows is what is written for him.
I wonder if Michelle obozo is now proud of this country, she has a lot to look forward too, child slavery, communist low life pulling the strings of her communist,socialist low life husband. I wonder how much a an interest in the major companies she Will own. All three Clintons were given Stock,Money and Gives from many of the large corporations.
Coke Cola paid out big time, they got away with tax evation,
they paid out heavily to the Clintons and DemoRats to poison the waters with chemical waste product that they told the American people was Fluoride, what a lie and con game that was and sill is, the wast product is similar to fluoride but not even close to being fluoride.
All DEMORATS drink coke cola, they all own stock in the company. Bill Clinton as he wagged his finger on one hand and said, I didn't have sex with that woman, his other hand was holding a can of coke.

[Zevonismymuse]

Now how logical would it be that if Bush, whom we trusted to at least some extent...

Who is "we"? I voted against President Bush in both primaries. I knew he was a chip off the old east coast block.

As far as Romney being untrustworthy I think it is important to acknowledge you work with what you have. Working within the confines of the Massachusetts government is much different than devising a plan to save the Winter Olympics in Utah or to turn around a failing company. One of the things I like best about Mitt is the decisive way he evaluates a problem and then takes bold steps to resolve the problem. I trust Mitt to always take a reasoned and intelligent approach when facing a challenge. Ronald Reagan had the same political practicality. I met Reagan when he was first running for Governor of California and closely followed his political career. He change his policies many times. What never changed was Reagan's willingness to address tough issues in an optimistic manner.

[Beagle8U]

“Never mind, it was a mistake to think someone would be nice enough to point me in the right direction.”

Being the nice guy that I am...

WAnkerville is thataway——————>

Go join the Ghouliani bots and take you Mittwit WAnker list with you.

[Zevonismymuse]

Seems that the patronizing tone, the attacks and such on Thompson, Hunter and others, as well as their supporters, the calling of “idiot” “Moron” etc. as well as such gems as calling Thompson's wife a whore and a stripper all emanated from the “Wholesome Team Romney” from the get go.

Not from me. Ever.

[Zevonismymuse]

"..ignorant hillbilly"

I am not calling you an ignorant hillbilly. I said certain rhetoric would only reinforce the ugly stereotype of the right being made up of hate-filled hillbillies.

[ejonesie22]

Did you vote for him in the big game?

There is your “we”...

And that “work with what you have” meme is getting really long in the tooth. For example with Mitt still defending his plan well after he left office and it was, how was it put to me once, “beset upon by liberals”, well that says it all right there.

And you guys dragging Reagan into it is getting way old.

[ejonesie22]

Did you ever stop and chastise your team mates for doing it?

[ejonesie22]

Buying the MSM line...

Well...

[greyfoxx39]

The problem is that person DOES NOT EXIST (other than maybe a “jack” mormon). For the LDS, the CHURCH (not Christ) is their life.

Bump and amen!

[TaxRelief]

Actually, it sounds goofy... I’m sorry. It’s my perception. Don’t go by me. Do a focus group.

Does he have a middle name?

[Zevonismymuse]

Did you vote for him in the big game?

You said "we" didn't know Bush couldn't be trusted. I said I did know that before the election. My vote for Bush doesn't mean I trusted him to be conservative; just like I voted for McCain last fall, it was simply a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.

The reason you may not like me bringing up Reagan is because he is a perfect example of a conservative who sometimes supported liberal ideas. Reagan's support of the Brady Bill is an excellent example of a big important issue Reagan chose to side with liberals. Who knows what would have happened if FR would have been around in 1980...maybe Reagan would have been seen as a left wing California Republican. He had reversed his position on abortion, favored some gun control and he had been divorced.

[penelopesire]

“The TEA Partiers are mostly grassroots people so I’m sure there are lots of people with divergent ideas, however, the main concept is to oppose out of control, big spending, big taxing, overreaching, big government.”

The Tea Party Movement, is the best shot we have had in 20 years, of reassembling the Reagan Coalition imho. I have not always been politically astute and in years past, have fallen victim to the ‘GOP Threat’, that if you don’t vote for their ‘liberal lite’..you will get the democrats ‘leftist heavy’. The RINOS have been able to hold way too much power in this party with that type of ‘scare tactic’ formula. It’s been going on for years and they are at it yet again.

The leftists know that this is how republicans lose...so we are seeing ‘stories’ everyday about ‘moderate conservatives’..’moderate republicans’, etc. The usual suspects like McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Specter and the corrupt American media are shaking the conservative foundation once again.

Thanks for your post. It is a great reminder that the best way not to wind up twisting yourself into a political pretzel, is to stand on a bedrock of founding principles and a foundation of faith.

I have learned so much reading and posting on Free Republic.

Thanks again for this forum.

[rbmillerjr]

Can we focus on the issues and candidates and not on their respective religion?