Posted on 05/22/2007 9:29:44 AM PDT by SittinYonder
"The Republican Party is falling apart," said one insider to me recently. "The GOP has become the party of neoliberal corporate globalism, not the party of conservatism," said another. Perhaps election 2008 will be the last hurrah. Other than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, the GOP presidential candidates are a joke. The rest are all neoliberal, interventionist globalists.
Look how we've derailed..."
Iraq is a huge mistake, a neocon experiment in utopianism, and we are paying the price. Bush's foreign policy is not conservative. It is Wilsonian nation building. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. And it is because of the neocon war machine in the Middle East that we are hated.
If we really want to end terrorism in the U.S., then we should completely disengage from the Middle East. We should (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East, (2) end foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all immigration from the third world.
Many fail to realize it, but terrorism is more an immigration issue than Middle Eastern issue. If Seung-Hui Ch? had not been allowed to immigrate hither, the Virginia Tech massacre would not have happened. Three of the terrorists recently nabbed in New Jersey (plotting to attack Ft. Dix) were illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. from Mexico. And almost all previous terrorists, including those on Sept. 11, were either legal or illegal third-world immigrants.
As Jean Raspail said in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest piece of conservative fiction ever written," there is a third-world invasion of the West taking place. We are under attack. And we can either make a stand against the third-world hordes, or we can watch the West crumble.
We must address the problem now. We need deportations, attrition, employer sanctions, and all immigration (legal and illegal) to end from the third world.
But many seem not to care. Many politicians and corporations are supporting this invasion. Why? Either for cheap votes or to drive down American wages.
Failure to address this invasion not only is a dereliction of duty, but it is a form of treason. And many of the presidential candidates are guilty of treason? Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee - and let's not forget Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Traitors, ever last one of them.
And then there's free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. But the neocons / neoliberals have their heads in the sand, wanting to take free trade to its logical conclusion in some perverse suicide pact.
The Democratic Party, which in the 19th century was the conservative party while the GOP was the left-wing party, betrayed the U.S. decades ago. And now the GOP is going the same globalist route? neoliberal wars, mass immigration to drive down American wages, and suicidal free trade pacts.
Do not stand for this nonsense!
If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination, then vote third party. Refuse to support the neocon / neoliberal globalist machine. If the GOP continues down this path, it is doomed anyway and, hopefully, out of the ashes a true conservative party will arise, perhaps the Constitution Party or the America First Party.
Or perhaps a new party will form, hopefully one modeling itself after the British National Party, Front National, or Vlaams Belang - all conservative parties in Europe, and conservative in the true sense of the word: the conservation of Western man. Not the phony neocon nonsense we have in the U.S.
No, they are not extreme for the Republican Party. It’s many of Bush’s positions that have been extreme, which is one of the reasons his poll numbers are in the toilet among his party base.
There's 200 posts that largely answer that question.
How cool Ron Paul is?
Oh, wait. I get it. You’re one of those Ron Paul supporters out there in cyberspace, frantically trying to create the impression of a groundswell of popular support for a Lyndon LaRouche-like political nonentity.
I've made my position on Ron Paul clear. Have you read anything, or do you just type a response to the voices in your head and then hit the "post" button?
It’s like dealing with a Scientologist, complete with the libel charge. I should’ve known.
Your complete lack of any ability at all to defend your ridiculous accusations against me and only hurl invective ... everything from anti-semite to "parties" I support to now, good grief, Scientologist ... is just like dealing with a liberal.
Oh, wait. Until December of 2004, you were a liberal - according to your profile. And now you still feel strange voting Republican.
The reason you feel strange may be that you don't have a conservative opinion, you abhor the Constitution and would prefer to be living in a globalist nation without borders.
Take your leftist tripe back to DU and post all day long about how Huckabee, Tancredo and Paul are on the extreme. Your statements about Ron Paul alone demonstrate that you don't understand the political philosophy you claim to have adopted.
Then again, you don't claim to be a conservative, do you? You just claim to be a Republican. Perhaps you're the reason the party has gone so far to the left. People who don't understand what Reagan was about, what the Contract With America was about or what the party platform has been about are now claiming to be Republicans and taking the party - and the nation - down the crap hole of socialism.
Thanks for nothing.
Now apologize for the nasty things you said about me.
Amen.
If Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination I’ll be rich from selling ice skates in hell, and I’ll be voting for a third party candidate.
I disagree with Paul's stance on the WOT and his failure to grasp that it's not our presence in the Middle East but the irrationality of the Islamic religion that spurred this war. However, we could do a lot worse than a president who believes the federal government should abide by the Constitution.
You're preaching the choir.
“However, we could do a lot worse than a president who believes the federal government should abide by the Constitution.”
That’s not working for me. But, why get spicy about a guy who’s polling in the range of 1 percent...no reason to even debate his chances...he’s finished.
“I do think the establishment by the Founders of a Supreme Court, whose central purpose is one of interpretation”
RF,
Judicial review was not the purpose for the Supreme Court envisioned by the Founders. Judicial review is no where to be found in the Constitution. The SC was simply the highest court in the land. It had no more authority to “interpret” the Constitution than did the Executive or Legislative branches. Its decisions were intended to be binding only on the parties involved. It was never intended to be able to “strike down” or “nullify” laws.
Well the evidence for a conspiracy certainly seems to be mounting every day....look at the Brits and Aussies to see where America is headed.
I was defending you against the other guy, that is why both names appeared in the ping.
Thanks. Looking back at the posts I don't understand why I didn't realize that.
Er, no. I didn’t write that. My change in world-view was a process, not an event, and it took years. I was a conservative well before 2004, and only began expressing my views once they had solidified. Constant attempts to frame me as a troll intent upon undermining your most righteous cause, whatever that cause might be, are laughable.
You also wrote, “Take your leftist tripe back to DU and post all day long about how Huckabee, Tancredo and Paul are on the extreme.”
Huckabee and Tancredo are mainstream, although Tancredo’s emphasis on a single-issue campaign hurts him, I think. But Paul? Ron Paul is a nutcase, a crank, a kook. You can’t stick him in the same group as Huckabee and Tancredo in hopes of hiding the man’s tinfoil hat fringe bona fides. Your stalwart defense of Paul, a 9-11 Truther who claims to be working closely with Dennis Kucinich(!), merely reinforces my initial impression.
And no, there’ll be no apologies forthcoming from me. I’m quick to apologize when I’m wrong, but I’m not wrong about you. And if it comes down to it, I’m not the one spewing invective left and right.
radical republicans were sure the libs of their day...no doubt about that
Ron Paul:
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
Ron Paul:
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
Ron Paul:
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data – a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress
that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.
Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a “suspicious activity report” to the federal government.
And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed,
Expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
Bull Sh1T
While no lawyer, I was raised by a judge, my stepfather, so I know (a very little) about the law by osmosis (and a bookshelf lined with Indiana Code). Our legal system has its basis in English Common Law. That law (historically) employed the use of precendent, a process entailing elements of close examination and interpretation. One can go back even farther, to the Torah, of which commentaries and disputes over the fine points of The Law take up a library of its own. Of course, the mechanism for Constitutional revision is by means of amendments. But take, for example, the recent admission by the gun control lobby that yes, in fact, the Constitution does mean that the right to keep and bear arms is not confined solely to militias, that it is indeed an individual right. The fact that such a debate existed in the first place; i.e., individual vs. militia bearing of arms, demonstrates that wrangling over meaning is possible, thus requiring definitive judicial interpretation. The central argument, I think, concerning judicial activism revolves around the use of this very traditional judicial role being perverted into a vehicle for societal changes more properly within the purview of the legislative (and perhaps) the executive branches of the federal government. The so-called right to privacy is a sham; such a right doesn’t exist by any logical inference within the Constitution, yet—hey presto—activist justices made it appear because pro-abortion advocates knew they had to circumvent the legislative branch to make it happen. The problem is this perversion of the judicial branch and the encroachment of that branch outside its defined purview, not the exercise by justices of their very traditional, time-honored role as interpreters of the law and arbiters of its meaning.
Loathsome and despicable, all of you, like bugs squirming under a rock. I simply can’t properly convey the contempt I feel for your kind. Fortunately, those sharing your views constitute the barking mad, lunatic fringe, not the mainstream of the Republican Party. So by all means, form your own party, since those who share your views are such an embarrassment to mine. And take Ron Paul with you
That was after you called me an anti-semite. And you now accuse me of being the one hurling invective. You are completely out of touch with reality. You make accusation after accusation with nothing to support it.
I've made my position on Paul and his beliefs about the WOT clear ... I do not support him. Yet you continue to say that I do. You can't support a thing you've said to me, but you keep repeating it as if it will magically become true.
I posted to you three examples of where Ron Paul stands on the issues. Those are conservative positions, though I realize there are some conservatives who support the Patriot Act. Saying that Paul is on the fringe or a kook demonstrates your leftist leanings.
Apologize!
You've made unfounded, nasty accusations against me without any ability to support them other than I didn't put "Barf Alert" in the headline of the article. You claim to be able to admit when you're wrong, then do it. Or find something in my posting history to support your ludicrous accusations.
I had heard you Ron Paul guys were working hard on-line, pushing your dream candidate—most recently spamming an LGF poll in order to give the impression of widespread support, so it’s only natural, I guess, that you’d show up here.
Busy, busy, busy.
It does you no good. No conservative would give a paranoid fringe candidate like Paul the time of day. Maybe he and Gravel from Alaska can get together over coffee and share alien abduction experiences, or something.
A. I’m not a “Ron Paul” guy. Tancredo’s my candidate.
B. I know what I posted ... straight from his website. Tell me how those principles aren’t conservative. Please, I’m dying to know.
C. I have not ever voted for Ron Paul on any poll anywhere.
D. I didn’t “show up” at FreeRepublic ... I’ve been here a long time. I have a long posting history that you’re free to look through to back up your claims ... but you refuse to.
E. Find the post that makes me an anti-semite or apologize.
I am not Tom Tancredo supporter but he is correct, If America goes down the rest of the free world goes with it- not just the West.
The Republicans have not attend to Republicans business of governing and that is why the lost the election. They spend more money then the Demos, if that is possible?
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.