"Republican Party Falling Apart"

"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.

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.

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.

It was my understanding with the BNP that the “racist” label comes from their desire to stop immigration from Islamists.

I know the Front National’s Le Pen has made Holocaust denial statements, and I realize that anti-semitism is rampant in France. Perhaps Front National is anti-semitic (I don’t know, but I guess it wouldn’t surprise me), but I do know that one of their goals is to stop immigration from Islamists.

The vlaams Belang party I don’t know anything about.

Obviously, I’m learning that these three groups stir emotions. Frankly, I don’t know enough about them, and when I read the line about the Republican Party modeling itself after them, I didn’t take that to mean what others have. The author’s points were all centered around immigration, and that’s the context I read this in.

I doubt very much that Hunter, Tancredo or Paul know this guy or have read this and probably won’t renounce him.

You wrote, “Come on and admit it, how many times have you applied to be an editorial page editor?”

You’re like a scratched record, SittinYonder, stuck in the groove and unable to move on. Journalism and creative writing are two very distinct vocations, although both entail putting words to paper. While it’s probably true many journalists aspire to fiction, it’s also (equally, probably) true fiction writers rarely aspire to journalism.

Of all the things going on in the world, why post a loony-tunes, conspiratorial screed? Rather than defend your posting choice with any lucidity or coherence, you absolve yourself of any endorsement of its content and go on the attack when people like me call you on that choice, and—in my case—condemn you for it. You drove the nail even harder when you posted Ron Paul campaign ad transcripts, in toto, verbatim. Paul is a 9-11 Truther, a paranoid nutjob thinly disguised as a reputable, mainstream conservative. You even attempted to lump Paul in with genuinely mainstream (if marginal) candidates like Tancredo and Huckabee.

You claim not to be antisemitic. So does Pat Buchanan, yet in nearly all of his columns nowadays, somehow, somewhere the influence of the ‘Zionist Lobby’ comes up. There’s nothing blatant about Buchanan—he was, after all, Nixon’s Communications Director at one time, so knows his way around the semantic minefield of political discourse, but the bigotry is there for anyone with eyes to see. When weighing Buchanan’s prejudices, it’s evident largely in his choice of topics, the way he approaches the subject matter, the causes he champions, the issues he embraces as his own.

Same with you.

No apology.

So does Pat Buchanan, yet in nearly all of his columns nowadays, somehow, somewhere the influence of the ‘Zionist Lobby’ comes up.

I've got hundreds of posts on FreeRepublic. Find the "zionist lobby" posts of mine if you're going to continue to call me anti-semitic.

Of all the things going on in the world, why post a loony-tunes, conspiratorial screed?

Because there are points in here I think are worthy of discussion: Is the Republican Party now a globalist party as the writer contends? Do conservatives intend to leave the party if the Republicans continue with what seems to be a globalist agenda? Are Tancredo, Hunter and Paul the only conservatives in the race, as the writer contends?

Go back and look at my first post on this thread, these are the two issues I pulled out because these were my focus.

I'm not very familiar with the European parties this guy talks about, and while I know Le Pen in France is anti-semitic (I was under the impression most of the French are), that never entered into my consideration when I posted this article. Since the immigration deal was struck, a lot of people have been saying they're done with the Republican party. That hardly makes them anti-semites.

You drove the nail even harder when you posted Ron Paul campaign ad transcripts, in toto, verbatim.

I absolutely support Ron Paul on his domestic policies, and among conservatives, I'm not alone there. Prior to Paul coming out with his anti-war stance, Paul was a hero to many conservatives on this forum. For his firm stance on the federal government abiding by the Constitution, he remains one of the few decent politicians in my opinion. What is it exactly about the Constitution that you don't support?

You didn't come into this thread until post 120. By then, I'd already made clear my position on Paul. I disagree with him in his positions on the WOT. I'd said that before you ever started your nasty diatribe against me. But Paul's opinions on domestic issues are grounded in the Constitution and mainstream conservative principles. As you well know I posted those three pieces straight from his website to give you an opportunity to show how he's a kook and on the fringe. You haven't touched it, you know those principles are conservative, you know they're not "fringe" positions so you just ignore it.

Though I do suspect they are positions you can't support. I think you're a globalist, and I think you find no fault in the current size and scope of the federal government.

You attacked me personally, over and over again, without the least bit of evidence to support your absurd claims. I have a long posting history that's easily accessible. If I am what you say I am, then use my words to prove it.

Otherwise, apologize.

You wrote, “For his firm stance on the federal government abiding by the Constitution, he remains one of the few decent politicians in my opinion. What is it exactly about the Constitution that you don’t support?”

A does not lead to B here, and is representative of the tack you’ve taken throughout. Any attempt to follow the logic of that statement takes one to an immediate dead end.

Ron Paul is a 9-11 Truther. A ‘decent politician’ is not one who believes the attacks on our country by Islamic extremists were part of a vast US governmental conspiracy. By doing so, he immediately discredits himself and all those who support him, in whole or in part. The BNP in Britain is a bastion of neo-facists. The author of the article you posted wouldn’t know a conservative from a carrot. Endorse the author’s views and you make yourself suspect as a fellow-traveler, in the very least.

I won’t go tit-for-tat with a conspiracy theorist. It’s like arguing with a neo-confederate about ‘The War of Northern Aggression’. What I will do, as I have done, is call you and others like you out and force you to defend your position with something approaching rational discourse. Admittedly, it is difficult to remain emotionally detached when dealing with someone holding paranoid, deranged, and/or repugnant ideas, but I don’t apologize for that, either. One should get angry when dealing with defenders of 9-11 conspiracy theories, for example. One should make such people objects of unbridled ridicule and sarcasm. Such people should know the derisive laughter they hear when leaving a room is at them, not with them.

It’s been fun.

What I will do, as I have done, is call you and others like you out and force you to defend your position with something approaching rational discourse.

That's the trouble. You're lying about me. You're pretending I have adopted positions that I have not adopted, and I won't defend those positions because they are not mine. I've said that, repeatedly. I've said it on this thread. I said it before you ever posted those lies about me and insulted me.

I absolutely will - and have - defended Paul's domestic policy and criticized him where he deserves criticism. I've also said repeatedly I don't endorse the opinion of this author.

I won’t go tit-for-tat with a conspiracy theorist.

Demostrate from my posts where I'm a conspiracy theorist. Demonstrate from my posts where I'm an anti-semite. You won't because you can't.

You are simply wrong in the things you've said about me. You can't prove that you're right because there is absolutely no evidence to support the accusations you've made. But instead of doing the decent and honorable thing, you repeat the accusations.

If the things you say about me were true, so be it. But your insults are based on lies created by you.

You owe me an apology. Prove your accusations against me instead of simply repeating them or apologize.

I don't disagree with you in your opinion about the 9/11 truthers or anti-semites. I do think you're a dispicable person because of your over-inflated ego and inability to admit you've made a mistake.

Why, if I am an anti-semite or a 9/11 Truther, wouldn't I attempt to defend those positions? Why would I beg you to search through my posting history to prove it?

I assure you, any position I take I am more than happy and more than willing to defend.

You're just a nasty liar who's only looking for a pissing contest.

Apologize.

Note that none of these parties are in power. Nor do any of them have a prayer of ever gaining power.

They are doomed to be permanent "protest parties".

And they insure the continuation of the socialist ruling parties.

Basil Harrington is a fool.

Doubtless, he would've voted for Ross Perot. So did I. But I learned my lesson...

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.