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?
That was really great news. We can thank everyone who helped seat Alito and Roberts for that, from the swift boat vets to the Federalist Society.
With Rudy, everything will go awry.
Papasmurf, I love your graphic. Consider it borrowed.
They are defeatists, who think conservatism is dead, that america just won’t support the right way, and that the best we can hope for is to trick them into voting for a candidate of ours that will do at least a little of what is right for the country.
I didn’t understand your question, woofie. Probably because I’ve been up since 5:00 a.m. :-)
Did you notice that the speech was at the G.H.W. Bush Library? I guess you also missed that Romney and McCain had previously spoken there as well.
I will let you know, I disagree with you very much about Rudy's history, qualifications, and ability to beat the Beast.
We need a Conservative to beat the dem nominee. (It will not be the Beast. IMHO)
“It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement”
Stop right there......
We have the post of the night!
“Because the concept of loyalty eludes some people - selfish people, that is.”
Do you mean “loyalty”, as in “poppy” bush being disloyal to the conservative base that gave him a landslide first time around?
Loyalty is a two way street - if you get it based on promises you made, and then fail to be loyal by keeping those promises, you can’t whine “gee, why aren’t they loyal to me???!”
A wonderful post and dead on accurate.
I second this, Trussell
You are such an idiot.
I give up, who?
Test
You don’t convince the country that conservatism is the only correct path by giving them a non-conservative for President.
And a liar to boot.
The answer to your question is: Yes, in the America of the Founding Fathers life was held to begin at “quickening” - which was roughly the fourth month of pregnancy. Ergo, abortion was not illegal in the first trimester and was frequently performed.
I don’t mean to be flip, but I’ll give it serious thought the second freepers make serious posts about why we should consider social issues more important than national security and fiscal restraint issues.
If this nation isn’t secure from jihadists (Muslims are breeding at a rate 7 times that of the rest of the world population), within a decade or so, we’re not going to be talking about abortion at all because we’ll be too busy dodging truck bombs at Home Depot.
If this nation doesn’t get a handle on entitlement spending (that battle has already been lost, imo, but Rudy just might be the man to take it on), then France is going to look like a paradise compared to the US in terms of socialist spending.
What am I lying about?
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.