To all of You!
Posted on 06/29/2013 11:44:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Bookmark
The problem with your idea is that now leftists are rabid-mad-dog aggressive and will never let one state or one county or one city or hospital or anything or anyone alone. Never. The voters in CA voted against fag marriage three times.
So the leftists pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and what do we get? Judicial activism at its very worst.
We need people and a party that will fight to the death the lefists and promote conservative values with courage. Not laissez faire libertarianism (actually libertarians are social leftists) because laissez faire means the leftists WIN BIG.
Jim,
I have posted numerous times over the past several years that the GOP is NOT our friend.
I gave up on them years ago. They haven’t had a good presidential candidate since Reagan, and they didn’t like him.
The people are fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans. They want to be freed from this tyrannical Government and they do not see either party as the way out. I believe this is true of many people along many points of the “right/left” political line. It isn’t just conservatives who are tired of this.
THE TIME IS RIPE for a third party.
Sarah Palin could be the one to pull it off.
I would follow her in a heartbeat. So would millions of others.
yah. they certainly can be. however you’ll find that they just can’t stand being with leftists who gush about their love for big government and crony capitalism.
they have plenty of animus for both sides.
On FR they just attack social conservatism big time, and lie about their real positions.
They nauseate me more than words can say.
The GOP has abandoned America. Right now, their number one priority is getting foreigners on the welfare rolls and registering them as DemocRATS. JMO.
To all of You!
So the leftists pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and what do we get? Judicial activism at its very worst.
We need people and a party that will fight to the death the lefists and promote conservative values with courage. Not laissez faire libertarianism (actually libertarians are social leftists) because laissez faire means the leftists WIN BIG.
I absolutely agree with what you said. However, I think what we have to look at is HOW do they push back? What is their mechanism? I think, (I might be wrong), but think, it is the COURTS. Almost every time.
So for my idea to be realistic for conservatives to win out we need to reign in the courts, all of them, and specifically clip the wings of the federal courts that do such much "judicial review" and damage to states rights and traditional values. The Supreme Court judges have become extremely corrupted with their oligarchy type power. I'm not enough of an expert to know what that would take, but I think that is the big weak spot in our system that allows the lunatic leftists to take so much power.
If we can "clip their wings" so to speak in that area, I have confidence that traditional Judeo Christian values will win out in the marketplace of ideas, even with people who aren't traditional conservatives and Jews, as even a lot of non-"religious" people don't want homo "marriage", perversion, etc. As you said, CA voted against perversion "marriage" 3 time. CALIFORNIA! Wow, if it can win 3 times there , it can anywhere - but again, it was the courts that overturned the will of the people.
I don't believe in Laissez Faire libertarianism, but I believe if the courts were put back in their places, that leftism would not thrive anywhere in the US. ( See Travis McGee's post below.) That along with repealing the 17th amendment would clip the wings of the powerful statist Senators and bring power back down to the state level, where it is more easily influenced by us.
The alternative to that, I think , is a complete reset via a new constitutional convention, in which the individual states actually make a decision on whether or not to become "Covenental Communities", actually putting a reference to our laws being based on the Bible, as our individual colonies were before the constitutional convention. (and if we went that far, we would probably be at the point of secession, as we wouldn't hold together at that point). That may be what God actually wants from us, and we are just seeing the fruit of making that major mistake when the Constitution was ratified (taking out all references to God and the Bible). I just think we are a long way off from making that happen, outside of actual CWII.
Got to go do my Bible study/devotions time- I've been convicted lately that too much time on FR is making me sad and depressed, wasn't going to get on until later today for a short while. I will check back in later in case you have any thoughts. ----------------------
SCOTUS DOMA Ruling A Loss For Big Government, Democrats Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:23:13 AM · 24 of 66
Travis McGee to BarnacleCenturion
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:travismcgee/index?more=85833956
The reset, when it comes, (and it might not be 50 states “after” the reset), will sweep away the original “poisoned tree” which is Marbury vs Madison, all the way back to 1803.
The Constitution does NOT say that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all laws in the USA. In fact, it puts Congress over the SCOTUS.
For perspective: Article One, dealing with congress, is 2,269 words long. Article Two, the executive, is 1,025 words. Article Three, the judiciary is only 377 words. Only 295 words if you take out Article Three Section 3, which deals with definitions of treason, not the judiciary.
And here is the applicable part of Article Three:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Right there, it says that congress can regulate the SCOTUS, and decide which cases should or should not be under their purview.
The fact that the congress has abrogated this power since Marbury vs Madison doesn’t mean that this power no longer exists in the Constitution. After our coming crash and reset etc, I have some small hope that the “Tyranny of Five” will be thrown out. Nowhere in the Constiution or the Federalist Papers etc does it say that the SCOTUS shall have the power to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions and so on.
It was never the intention of our Founding Fathers that our Republic should become a tyranny of five judges.
24 posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:23:13 AM by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
The very thing Newt said he would work to stop.
Heck, a good contingent of fr acts like the gop is entitled to your vote.
” KILL THIS BILL and do not write any other that can go to reconciliation.
The future of our Republic and the GOP lie in the House. Period.”
You said it all!
Oh ... wait ...
MORONS who insist on WILLFULLY misrepresenting libertarianism as "libertine" are hurting the cause of Christian morality and freedom. They reject on a totally false premise Americans whose votes could join with ours -- we limited-government conservatives -- to make America the limited-government FREE place for self-government and self-responsibility that the Founders created it to be.
WHY, jeremiah, didn't the Founders outlaw gambling in the Constitution? Why didn't they use the Constitution to outlaw homosexuality? Why didn't they use the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, drunkneness and sloth?
Because they understood that limited government is there to protect people's rights to DO things, not to prohibit people from indulging in moral failings.
Limited government consevatives and libertarians are rightly united in wanting to see the responsiblity of outlawing "sin" given to "the people" in states and local governments. Folks like you insist on DECEIT and SELF-DECEIT, telling yourself and others that the only things libertarians want is to see drugs and abortion made legal so they can live libertine lifestyles.
YOUR kind of thinking, jeremiah, is wrong and self-deceptive.
It was a very encouraging conversation. BURN DOWN THE PHONE LINES!
Boehner is gonna get a call soon as well.
Forgot to ping you to my last post, the conversation with my congresscritter’s rep: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3037181/posts?page=533#533
” It was a very encouraging conversation. BURN DOWN THE PHONE LINES!
Boehner is gonna get a call soon as well. “
Great job!
The official Libertarian Party is officially pro-abortion, pro-open borders, pro-the entire homo agenda, pro-legal all drugs, pro-legal prostituion, and pro-no holds barred porn even in public places.
If anyone is against the LP offical real platform and still calls themselves a libertarian, why do they use the same owrd? I’ve debated (with many libertarians on FR sort of - the duplicity on the side of libertarians is such that no real debate can be had as they obscure their real positions, Absolutely Nobama can attest to that too) and they are social leftists/anarchists.
The LP is the ultra fringe anarchy kook branch of the left. I still cannot grasp why people call themselves libertarian if they don’t agree with the LP on those issues.
And if they do agree, they are a big part of the problem. Reagan’s statement has nothing to do with the discussion unless you detail exactly what the LP position was at that time. I seriously doubt Reagan would want to make common cause with the LP as it stands today.
I am not a moron, and the lP party is libirtinism. Another point of duplicity about libertarians is when asked “Okay, I understand your not wanting the fedgov involved in moral issues - they’re outside of the Constitutional duties for the fedgov - fine and dandy with me - but what about states making such laws?”
They mostly get off the thread at that point without answering, but the few times they do answer, they admit they don’t want states to make such laws either.
Your accusations against me are irrational and duplicitous. The FOunders did not want the fedgov involved in most of what it is doing, and I totally agree with their vision. But libertarians don’t want states to have any power either! When the states were colonies and for 150 yeras after, every state had, for instance, stringent laws against sodomy. No one saw anything unconstitutional about it.
Now the LP is 100% onboard with the entire homo-agenda. THey’re happy about it.
Mitch and Bonehead are pretty confident that no third party can hurt them. The Tea Party couldn’t hurt them. That’s why Corker is out saying we the people are too stupid to see how good this immigration bill really is. The press will make it look good and the majority of the people will be led by their nose rings into the “yea” column.
The reason I’d like to see a third party is so we can see the rinos caucus with the democrats. Maybe then we’ll not longer hear the “we have to change the party from within” crap.
I’m ready for a move. I joined the Tea Party, but they seem to have fizzled out. Where were they in 2010?
So you think the laws against sodomy in all the states for 150 years were wrong? And that states should not be allowed to have such laws? How about abortion - should it be up to the states as well? How about pornography? Prostitution? There were laws against obscenity and prostituion in every state throughout most of our history, were such laws wrong in your mind?
Thank you for your reply and also quoting Travis McGee’s comment.
Personally I think it’s too far gone for a simple re-set. Maybe massive protests on the streets? Economic collapse? Other?
The reason I think it’s too late, or reasons, actually:
1. The elite political class is too powermad, too lustful and greedy for the money and power and indulgences that come with their positions to give up their power or allow any decent changes.
2. Related to above - such powermad, lustful and greedy elites are larded in every fedgov agency, bureau, department and so on - many are not elected and are lifers - and also in a lot of state governments. They will not give up their power just because they should, change of administration, etc.
3. Along with the elites motivated solely by self interest, there are the rabid leftists/commies/racists and last but not least, mozlems or pro-mozlems (whether ideology or bought by Saudi $). These are basically evil psychopaths and will never leave without being absolutely forced to by superior strength. Just voted out won’t work, and many are not in elected positions.
4. The huge feral underclass which is solely dependent on gov money to exist (although many are also supported by the drug trade).
5. THe huge numbers of people who are not feral subhumans but are still 100% dependent one way or another on gov $.
Due to the above factors I just don’t see a gradual and sensible method of change. I wish I did. I think it will change, for sure. Just not in a rational way we’d like.
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.