Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rino Season Is Now Open
Human Events ^ | 11-12-2008 | Ted Nugent

Posted on 11/12/2008 7:41:19 AM PST by America_Right

Like any entity that abandons basic quality control, political parties rot from within. It happened to the Democrats long ago, and now has become the case with the Republican Party, which has strayed from its conservative underpinnings.

There are really only four things I have a strong aversion to: unloaded guns, dull knives, banjos, and Republicans in Name Only (RINOs).

The Nugent family simply doesn't allow any of those things in our lives.

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; nugent; revolution; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: sarasota
Our current voting system is based on the “honor system”. How insane is that?!

Back when most people had honor, it made perfect sense. But that's been a while.
41 posted on 11/12/2008 9:33:37 AM PST by JamesP81 (A loyal son of the great commonwealth of Kentucky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance
Now that was just wrong.
42 posted on 11/12/2008 10:18:52 AM PST by Scothia (Don't blame me--I voted for Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius
The leadership must not be RINO, but we need RINO’s in our tent.

We’ve been bleeding voters for the last 4 years. Its a terrible idea to alienate our candidates on the margin.


The very reason we lost was because of RINO's in the leadership, and in the masses! We lost by 8 million votes.

Had the Ticket been Palin/Jindal, or Palin/Hunter, or even Palin/ any conservative, we could have easily won. Sarah knows how to listen, evaluate, and lead, the American people. That is something McCain just didn't do. "My friends, my friends"(concensus taker) VS "I hear you loud and clear, and am acting on it now!"(leader). Guess which works?

If you don't think McCain isn't RINO, let me know when he is going to apologize to her, for the way she was treated on the trail, and post election? She was the ONLY reason that he got the votes that he did! That's because she is a RINO slayer.
43 posted on 11/12/2008 10:45:28 AM PST by Issaquahking (Obama won the election, and America lost!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: America_Right
WANTED POSTER
44 posted on 11/12/2008 11:02:31 AM PST by Dawebman (WANTED !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: America_Right

and no bag limit

and any weapon will do


45 posted on 11/12/2008 11:06:19 AM PST by wardaddy (sunset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: America_Right

After McCain won the nomination the Republican base basically said “We’ll hold our noses and vote for you, but only because the other guy is worse”. The conservative activist base did not get out and volunteer for McCain. They did not put bumper stickers on their cars, or yard signs in their yards, or go door to door, or donate their time and money.


46 posted on 11/12/2008 11:23:32 AM PST by gieriscm (07 FFL / 02 SOT - www.extremefirepower.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: America_Right

Forget RINOs, exterminate them later. Obama will takes away our consitutional rights. And turns this country communist. Its not far fetch either. Sad to say. We are in for the fight of our lives.


47 posted on 11/12/2008 11:49:12 AM PST by Warlord David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: America_Right

Yep.

However, I personally would recommend his not going to a gun fight with only a knife...or in this case a bow.

He should be hunting them down at the least with a bazooka or howitzer ...

48 posted on 11/12/2008 2:04:03 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
The very reason we lost was because of RINO's in the leadership, and in the masses!

What do you mean "in the masses"?

49 posted on 11/12/2008 3:12:22 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Scothia
"Now that was just wrong."

LOL - looking back now, you're absolutely right! Shocking wasn't it? ;o)
50 posted on 11/12/2008 6:36:10 PM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life ;o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: America_Right

If GWB is not listed as a RINO, who is?


51 posted on 11/12/2008 7:59:12 PM PST by Theodore R. (The most frightening words in the English language: The American people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Warlord David

Remember what Jane Fonda said about communism. If the American people understood it, they would get on their knees and “pray” (a term communists reject) that we “all become communist.” Well, it looks like Jane is on to something her in Marxist Amerixa.


52 posted on 11/12/2008 8:04:56 PM PST by Theodore R. (The most frightening words in the English language: The American people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
If GWB is not listed as a RINO, who is?

He truly is. But don't mention it to the prayer-bots here. They have scales on their eyes a mile thick. Scales they put there.

We had a heads up on W before the first electionin 2000:

My Bush Epiphany


To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=3045

Thursday, November 13, 2008



My Bush epiphany


Posted: September 20, 2000
1:00 am Eastern


WorldNetDaily.com



A few weeks before he was nominated as the Republican candidate for president of the United States, I happened to see Bob Dole being interviewed on TV. As I watched, everything I knew about Dole came to mind -- the love for big government that he had unembarrassedly revealed in his Senate retirement speech a few days earlier, the constant hints and sardonic asides by which he distanced himself from conservatives and accommodated himself to liberals, even the way his eyes kept shifting from side to side as he spoke. Suddenly the thought flashed into my mind: "He's not on our side; he's on their side."

It gives me no pleasure to say it, but George W. Bush, at least on some key issues, has given conservatives reason to have similar concerns about him. Of course, many conservatives were already put off by W.'s "compassionate" conservatism, his inclusion-soaked nominating convention, and his failure to say anything serious about the Clinton-Gore corrup-tion of our national life. If W. would not take even a minimal stand against the epic illegalities and abuses of power that we have been living under, then how could his election be seen as a repudiation of those abuses, and how could it cleanse the country of the stain that Clinton has left?

By the same token, given the fact that W. panders to Hispanics and is so conspicuously fond of diversity, how can he be counted on to defend America's national identity and sovereignty from the organized Hispanic interest groups and globalist elites who are hostile to both? A case in point was his refusal during the primaries to criticize a Texas town where Spanish had been declared the official language.

Thus W. had already shown a troubling degree of softness on the important issues of public morality and national identity. But in a two-day period in late August, he went much further (or much further backward) on both fronts than he ever had before.

On the matter of public integrity, he announced his approval of Janet Reno's decision not to appoint a special counsel to investigate Al Gore's role in the 1996 campaign scandal. In doing this, W. was not just avoiding a "partisan attack" on Clinton-Gore corruption; he seemed to be going out of his way to help protect Clinton and Gore from accountability.

On the matter of national identity, W. delivered in Miami on Aug. 25 a major address on U.S.-Latin American relations, in which he unveiled a startling -- at least for a Republican -- view of America. We should pay close attention to his words:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

Let us be clear that W. is not (as Republican politicians including Reagan have done for decades) celebrating immigrants from diverse backgrounds on the assumption that they are becoming part of our culture and way of life. On the contrary, he is applauding the expansion and the increasingly dominant role of the Hispanic culture and the Spanish language in this country. He is explicitly welcoming the very things that are making America less and less like its historical self and more and more like Latin America.

To repeat, this is not the usual establishment conservative line of "immigration with assimilation." This is multiculturalism, the view of America as a collection of unassimilated yet "equal" cultures in which our former national culture will be progressively downgraded and marginalized.

Also surprising is W.'s claim that Republicans have "made a choice to welcome the new America." Did Republicans realize that by nominating W. they were not only committing themselves to a pro-multicultural candidate, but shutting down all debate on the issue?

Complementing W.'s support for the Hispanicization of American culture was his view of Mexico-U.S. relations:

I have a vision for our two countries. The United States is destined to have a "special relationship" with Mexico, as clear and strong as we have had with Canada and Great Britain. Historically, we have had no closer friends and allies. ... Our ties of history and heritage with Mexico are just as deep.

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on.

We share none of those things with Mexico, which, along with the rest of Latin America, constitutes a cultural region quite distinct from that of the United States and Europe. Everyone, on both the left and the right, has always known this to be so. W., apparently, does not. As he sees it, our mere physical proximity to Mexico is tantamount to cultural commonality with Mexico.

W.'s delusions of cultural similarity don't stop there. "Differences are inevitable" between Mexico and the U.S.," W. continued. "But they will be differences among family, not between rivals."

Coming from the Republican candidate for president of the United States, the statement boggles the mind. It was bad enough when the Democrats in the 1980s started their socialist rant (soon echoed by the Republicans) that Americans are all "one family." But now George W., "The Man from Inclusion," has taken the "family" idea several steps further. For W., it is not just the United States, but the United States and Mexico, and ultimately the United States and the whole of the Americas, that constitutes one "family."

With this thoughtless clich?, W. is moving in symbolic terms toward the goal that Mexico's newly elected president Vicente Fox is calling for in concrete terms: the opening of the U.S.-Mexican border. After all, who would want to maintain national borders and high-tech barriers between members of the same family? Within a family there is unconditional support, mutual obligation, and the sense of a shared destiny -- not armed patrols and checkpoints.

Whether or not W. himself understands the logical implications of his "family" rhetoric, its political consequence if he becomes president will be the same -- the further delegitimization of our borders and our national sovereignty.

All of which leads up to the question: Why is he doing this? Most conservatives had accepted, if without enthusiasm, the pragmatic need for W. and other Republicans to project a warm and "inclusive" image, conspicuously embracing minorities and so on. But by no reasonable calculation did that require W. to embrace multiculturalism, any more than the need to avoid "negative attacks" on his Democratic opponent required him to praise Reno's cover-up of Gore.

Since his adoption of a multicultural vision of America makes no sense in political terms (indeed, it would tend to alienate his own base), the only explanation is that W. really believes in it. Watching his speech in Miami, you couldn't help but feel that W. is genuinely moved by this "We're all one family" sentiment. It is as central to his heart (about which he is always telling us) as the love of big government is to Bob Dole's.

Just as Dole at the 1996 Convention showed his liberal colors when he declared that the Republican party is rife with unspecified "haters" for whom "the exits are clearly marked," W. has unambiguously demonstrated his allegiance to the liberal policies of open borders and multiculturalism, characterizing everyone who dissents from those policies as driven by "resentment" and implying that they have no place in the Republican party. He has left no wiggle room for honest conservatives to tell themselves, "Well he's really on our side, the side of a unified American nation. He just has to say all these things about welcoming other cultures in order to get elected."

Of course, many principled conservatives feel they have strong reasons (I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether they are compelling reasons) to vote for W. They believe that with W. in the White House, there will be at least a chance of forestalling a further leftward lurch by the Supreme Court and such nightmarish statist projects (endorsed by Gore) as universal childcare. They also feel that our country cannot endure the continued debauching of our national institutions and character that has occurred under Clinton and Gore. But, if conservatives do mark their ballot for W. on Nov. 7, they should do it without illusions -- and they should be prepared to fight President Bush every inch of the way to preserve what remains of our national identity and sovereignty.


Lawrence Auster lives in New York City.


53 posted on 11/13/2008 9:39:00 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson