Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!

Refer to Romney's Council for a New American Socialist State formed in HIS Image ^ | May 2, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.

Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.

I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.

Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.

I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!

We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.

We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.

We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.

We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!

And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.

And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!

We bow to no king but God!

Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!

Do NOT Tread on US!

Thank you very much!

[SwinneySwitch]

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the
ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia
and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own
excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander,
could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the
Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the
approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it
must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction
be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

[Beagle8U]

“There must be a happy medium between free speech on FR and the cynical using of the forum by the Romney campaign to gain free advertising for him.”

Well, you're a much nicer guy than I am.

I would ping the whole stupid MittWit list to one thread and feed them to a BugZapper.

[greyfoxx39]

Now THERE are a couple of contradicting statements!

Who is "we"? I voted against President Bush in both primaries. I knew he was a chip off the old east coast block.

As far as Romney being untrustworthy I think it is important to acknowledge you work with what you have.

[Beagle8U]

Yes, I’m shy and have a hard time putting my thoughts to words.

[ejonesie22]

I am torn on the subject. While it would make a point, I would miss the Mittwitts, their whole schtick is entertaining to say the least. It’s like a daily floor show...

[ejonesie22]

You caught that too.

I can only process so much irony at one setting before I burst out in cynical hysteria...

[ejonesie22]

You seem to be getting over it ;-)

[SeattleBruce]

Have any of those 5 people (Jindal, Palin, Hunter, Demint, Huckabee) even hinted they’re running for pres. in 2012? I know at SurgeUSA.com you can see a link to ‘draft Sarah Palin in 2012’. Just curious if anyone knows or has heard comments about which of those 5 might run. I know it’s early - OR IS IT? We live in perilous times.

[trisham]

It's early yet. Still, when a politician finds a way to get his or her name into the news fairly often, one might conclude that they are doing a bit of preparation for a campaign.

[Beagle8U]

I would rather they post their libtard bull$hit some where else.

I loathe that worthless gun grabbin’, queer lovin’, abortion defendin’ socialist bastard and the stupid lil Mittwits that try to promote him!

[Zevonismymuse]

Now THERE are a couple of contradicting statements!

I think I make my point perfectly. I did not think George Bush was conservative so I voted for someone else in both primaries. In the general election I worked within the confines of reality and voted for the lesser of two evils.

[SeattleBruce]

“that IS, if the McCain/Romney/Bush cabal doesn’t suck up all the air and campaign money now, as is their goal IMO.

I believe that they and the MSM are in cahoots to keep any conservative that may be electable from gaining a foothold.”

Right. We MUST fight this at all costs. This is the illusion that they expect a large portion of the right to AGAIN be fooled by. This is exactly where the war for the soul of America and the soul of the R party must be fought. Into the breach! Let’s roll! Who’s with me?

[greyfoxx39]

I think I make my point perfectly. I did not think George Bush was conservative so I voted for someone else in both primaries. In the general election I worked within the confines of reality and voted for the lesser of two evils.

Heh!

[ejonesie22]

Yep, well there are pros and cons there...

I will miss their antics to be honest, it almost brings me to tears sometimes I am laughing so hard...

But I have a cruel streak in me...

[21stCenturion]

A key concept that ought to unite ALL conservatives — both here and in general — can be simply stated as ‘Not on MY watch !!!’

Otherwise, I agree whole-heartedly with your stated principles and the objectives of YOUR ‘FreeRepublic.COM’.

Is there another ‘culling’ in our near future ?

21stCenturion

[Beagle8U]

Also see #890

[ejonesie22]

And yet Z you promote a man who has a proven, documented track record of being on every side of almost all the fundamental issues Conservatives favor, far worse than Bush who was solid on many of these same issues, even through his time in the White house.

Frankly it just doesn't wash, sorry.

[restornu]

Why would you post such an unflattering picture of Reagan just to get a rise?

It is most likely photoshop!

I have a feeling you were not so fond of him!

[ejonesie22]

LOL...

I missed that one...

Delightful...

Last train to Wankerville “All abroad”...

oops missed one...

[Lucky9teen]

Hear Hear!!! ;) Thank you Jim for Free Republic!!