Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
You have a long haul ahead of you if you plan on reading the whole thread and responding to even only a few of them.
No way I can manage that.
But I wanted to see what seemed to go wrong with so many old timers giving our beloved leader such a hard time.
Some of them have been cheeky and troublesome for a long time to many of us . . . but I still like everyone to have shared conservative values AND get along! LOL.
Thanks for your kind msg.
Forbes has some interesting features but IIRC he too has been tooooo friendly and shares toooo many values/goals with the socialist/communist/globalist puppet masters.
I ended up considering him too much of a risk.
Strongly agree.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
WELL WORTH POSTING AGAIN:
If we can’t fight against socialism’s galloping intrusion into the conservative Republican party during the primaries, when can we? If we don’t knock this liberal out now and he becomes the Republican nominee, then we’re REALLY going to be in for a fight. There is no way on God’s green earth that we are going to elect an abortionist. socialist to the White House from the Republican party. That would be complete and total surrender to the culture of Marxism. GOP RIP!
Well, step number one will be building a database of his quotes, speeches, transcripts, video clips, etc. We’re looking for the words straight out of the horse’s mouth (so to speak).
Next will be a database of his actual deeds and record throughout his public life. And while doing this we’ll be cataloging and indexing all the news articles we can find that document his liberalness, corruption, and unconstitutional abuses.
We’ll also start uncovering his corruption and hidden business dealings that he’s been carrying on even as an elected public official and that’s made him and his partners a ton of money off his government contacts, etc (and no one’s really delved into this aspect yet - as he’s kept his financial dealings off the table to this point and the press hasn’t brought it up - why is that?).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
THANKS. Been looking for some marching orders. We need very well thought-out and workable action plans to head him off before he even gets to the pass.
AND
TO INSURE SHRILLERY IS BLOWN OUT OF THE SADDLE AS WELL
AND
THAT OUR CONSERVATIVE STANDARD BEARER IS ELECTED.
Who knows. Beliefs fade, people change. I'm an old timer too and I think Jim is doing a bang-up job. He defines the mission, and rightly in my view. Old-fashioned conservatism is exactly what we have to keep uppermost. Whoring after a politician who does not share our principles will undo all the work we've done.
As long as I'm tuned into the FReeper mission, I'm pleased to stay and pitch in. To those who can't agree any more, go your way in peace instead of warring on Free Republic and cursing all who remain behind.
Who knows. Beliefs fade, people change. I’m an old timer too and I think Jim is doing a bang-up job. He defines the mission, and rightly in my view. Old-fashioned conservatism is exactly what we have to keep uppermost. Whoring after a politician who does not share our principles will undo all the work we’ve done.
As long as I’m tuned into the FReeper mission, I’m pleased to stay and pitch in. To those who can’t agree any more, go your way in peace instead of warring on Free Republic and cursing all who remain behind.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
MUCH AGREE.
It has been discouraging and wearying many times to be brutalized very harshly, personally assaultively by folks who are anti-Christian; anti-responsibility; pro-situation ethics etc. I hope a good many of them are now gone.
The abortion apologists alone were horrid enough.
LOL! A certain site told their folks to go over to FR, there is a poll up re the debate and vote for, you know who and you know who.
I guess they can’t help themselves.
Hillbilly truth bump!
...some nasty folks at that site....i don’t post too often on FR but i lurk a lot....i think JR was right on target.
If I were management here, I'd take special note of the voting patterns by visitors and by their friends here. Useful intelligence :-)
Calm, courteous, intelligent discussions are such a bore.
Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.
Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )
Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.
Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )
Thanks Betty. - Your honesty doesn't surprise me, but I'm always amazed at how many disagree with the base principles behind our establishment/religious test clauses. [again, agreeing that prohibitionists have abused those clauses]
Yes indeedy, they sure have! Their favorite maneuver generally takes the form of focusing on the establishment clause only, then ignoring the second clause wherein Congress is forbidden to prohibit "the free exercise thereof."
Notice that, in the enumeration of restrictions on federal government power that makes up the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is the very first liberty guaranteed by the very First Amendment -- which gives religious liberty precedence even over free speech (press freedom), assembly, and petition for redress. Clearly, the Framers must have thought religious liberty (the right of conscience) of preeminent importance -- even though these same men would prohibit "religious tests" for federal public office in the main body of the Constitution.
At the same time, however, all federal oaths of office require the candidate to "swear (or affirm)" his allegience to the Constitution before assuming his public duties. Always -- at least until the coming of Ralph Ellison, who demanded a Koran be made available to him for the purpose of his Oath (an unfortunate accommodation, IMHO, for it put a government institution in the position of discriminating/referee-ing among religious creeds) -- a Bible is involved for the purpose of the Oath.... This instantly tells us that JudeoChristian moral law is the foundation and touchstone of our system of justice.
I mean, we don't ask public officers to swear on Marvel comics, or The DaVinci Code! This fact ought to moot the issue of whether the Ten Commandments should be removed from court houses (particularly the Supreme Court) and other public venues; or that "In God we trust" be removed from our currency; or the "under God" provision from the Pledge of Allegience....
The two -- federal government recognition of religious freedom and no religious tests for federal office -- are not in conflict: Both are reconciled in the idea that the federal government may not favor any particular religious creed over any other, but that religion in general is to be free to flourish.
IOW, Institutionally, the government is not in the religion business: It must remain neutral in the religious sphere. Culturally, however, the Constitution draws on the cultural heritage that was formulated in Athens and Jerusalem (and also Rome and London, as Russell Kirk has noted in The Roots of American Order -- a great read).
The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
The so-called "wall of separation" between church and state is an illusion in the fevered brains of Left-progressive, positivist judicial theoreticians. It has no real Constitutional basis.
AND alien-ates the UN-alienable.. For who could enforce unalienable laws except GOD... Some people...., you write them down a perfectly good constitution and they want to alienate it..
But then thats what governments do, all governments.. they alienate stuff.. Government "IS" indeed the problem..
Democracy(Mob Rule by Mobsters) is not the answer it is the problem..
AMEN!
That's the whole point, hosepipe: No one can enforce "unalienable" human rights except God. They are unalienable simply because they are grants of and by God, vested in man.
Government can't give you rights, only privileges. And what government grants it is always able and oftentimes willing to take back, or rescind.
You takes your choose: You can place your trust in God, or in (feckless, narcissistic, power-hungry) politicians.
Amen.. Should be said again..
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.