According to Joe Hadenuf: Official Free Republic Position Parallels GOP On Immigration. No Big Deal

Last night during a conversation/debate between myself and the leader/owner of the Free Republic, Jim Robinson, a rather stunning revelation was brought forth. I asked Mr. Robinson, which Republicans were vocally backing, and supporting Tancredo in his fight for our sovereignty? After some delay, Jim answered, “I have no idea. Immigration is not a big concern of mine.”

This is from the man that runs the most well known, and respected, political conservative internet forum in the United States? And Mr. Robinson resides in California?

Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack The Chicago Sun-Times | June 22, 2002 | Thomas Roeser

#939: Oh, so the Republicans are fighting for our sovereignty? Besides Tancredo, which Republicans are these Jim? If you could be specific.

Given thirty years of this open border, immigration "free for all" that has resulted in many millions entering our nation illegally, I believe there are very few Republicans, or anyone else in DC, besides Tancredo, that are visibly and vocally fighting for our national sovereignty.

Now would you care to tell me which Republicans are standing with Tancredo and voicing outrage against this titanic, never ending invasion of illegal aliens?

1056 posted on 6/22/02 11:09 PM Pacific by Joe Hadenuf [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies | Report Abuse

1109 posted on 6/22/02 11:43 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

At first I as was stunned, angry, and felt let down. Then after some thought I wasn’t too surprised.

Looking back at all the hundreds of immigration threads where many were deleted, disappeared and sent to the cornfield, I guess I am not too surprised. However, given the gravity and danger this country faces regarding this out of control, titanic immigration issue, I am still outraged, disheartened and saddened by Mr. Robinson’s response. Thread after thread Freepers have displayed genuine outrage and honest concern regarding this issue. And the outrage and insanity regarding this issue goes far beyond the Free Republic.

It’s escalated to the point now where many of our major cities in this country, such as Chicago, have now approved the use of identification cards, issued by Mexican consulates that will give illegal aliens access to financial and public services and more, as our so-called leaders stand treasonously silent, as our sovereignty is slowly dismantled.

This massive invasion of millions of illegal aliens has changed the face of many of our once great cities, from California to Illinois, to Georgia, to Tennessee, to Texas etc etc.

They are crowding our already over crowded classrooms, voting in our elections, choking off our social services, driving down the wages, while driving up our taxes, filling our jails, standing room only in many big city emergency rooms, etc, etc, etc. I personally know of six American citizens that have become victims of illegal alien crime, from having family members slaughtered on our highways by drunk driving illegal aliens, to stabbings, robberies and common burglaries.

And just recently, another young Deputy Sheriff was shot through the face and killed in California by an illegal alien, that has again fled back to the safety of Mexico. It has now been learned that this individual has already been deported three times, each time he has returned and committed more crimes in our country, leaving American victims in his wake, and each time he fled back to the safety of Mexico.

There are many forms of terrorism, and this continued invasion of millions upon millions is one form. And it's my opinion that it’s one of the most dangerous, most threatening issues facing America today. Even today as we speak, our federal government continues to allow in almost 8000 Middle Eastern men a month on visas. It is my opinion that this legal and illegal “immigration free for all” must be, stopped, extremely limited, and reformed immediately!

Again, I am extremely saddened and distressed by Mr. Robinson's response and lack of concern regarding this issue.

I've been looking to the ballot box for a short 15 years; my friends (in their late '70's) have been looking to the ballot box for some 50 years. When do you suppose the ballot box is going to turn the country away from commie/socialistic bent? A good argument could be made that the ballot box helped forward the c/s agenda.

And as for the courts...well, as your post 25 indicates, you and I know that this is a key area of concern (as is the family, our paychecks, and the military) and I ask you to show me where we have made or when we are going to make so much as a dent in the c/s thrust in the judiciary? Are you saying we need to persuade leftie judges of the error of their ways? When is the Senate going to start confirming conservative judges? FR is a wealth of information and I do use it to enlighten myself and many friends who are young and/or ill-informed, but to say that the ballot box or the courts or even our cherished FR is going to overturn the c/s onslaught is sweetly, endearingly, and wonderfully idealistic.

Also Bush has done little to advance the conservative agenda. When is he going to do so ("If not now, when")? If (and it's a big IF) his strategy includes, as many people want to believe, pandering and very dangerous compromises that threaten our Constitution, then I disagree vehemently with this tactic.

I just want to make sure you don't think I advocate in any way overthrow or violence (altho I believe it's sometimes necessary). As I said, I think the best we can hope for is to hold the c/s agenda at bay.

Cynicom: I knew that FDR had c/s leanings, but the extent to which he did was a sad and horrifying eye opener! His ilk are completely entrenched in literally every single American institution.

Let's start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). William Jennings Bryan had fought for the 17th Amendment for years during the progressive era. What was the impetus for it? What were the stated goals?

They might sound familiar to you, since you are very familiar with the efforts of McCain.

Now, after the most protracted political battle in that usually bloodless revolution historians refer to as the Progressive Era, Secretary Bryan put his seal upon the reform that, in the expectations of those who had labored for it, would end the dominance of party "bosses" and the state "machines," stamp out the undue influence of special interests in the Senate, make it more responsive to the will of the people, and of course, eliminate, or greatly reduce, the execrable practice of spending large sums of money to get elected. (Source)

I think it is abundantly clear that it has failed at each one of these goals, in spectacular fashion. There is a pretty good morning talking head on WRRK here in Pittsburgh named Jim Quinn. He has what he calls "Quinn's Second Law" which is that "liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent. I think a good case can be made for the 17th amendment having made each one of those worse.

Take campaign finance. By making Senate representation of states to be subject to popular vote, we created 100 more elections for special interests to funnel money into. Worse, quite often state races become national races, with special interests that have nothing to do with the state in question pouring money in to influence the election. Simply by repealing the 17th, the amount of money poured into the Senate campaigns would be minimized or completely removed.

Talk about campaign reform! If the special interests can't cause their treatment by the Senate to change with their contributions to election campaigns, then their incentive to try to buy things through the legislature is decreased. After all, why spend all that money trying to get the House to vote one way, if there is the Senate that can't be swayed by money thrown towards election ads or campaign contributions?

Aside from contravening the founders' purposes by removing the representative intermediaries between the people and the Senate, it is highly doubtful that the people were actually given greater control over Senate elections. Instead of selecting a trustworthy delegate from among his neighbors to negotiate the choice of senators on his behalf, the individual voter was now asked to rely on the second- and third-hand accounts of newspapers. At best, his first-hand knowledge of Senate candidates was usually limited to what he heard on the stump or in the rhetoric of debate. Because no state consisted of a single interest, and no candidate wished to alienate the particular audience whose attention he had momentarily been granted, the substance of such engagements would naturally tend either toward telling each group what the candidate thought it wanted to hear, or toward speaking in terms so broad and patriotic as to mean all things to all people.

Further, since Senate elections now are national affairs, the result is that the various elections often have less to do with the interests of the state, and more to do with the interests of the nation. This is a large change from the original intent of the Senate, which was to be the legislative body that protected state interests from encroachment by the federal government. The 17th amendment took the brakes that the states could apply to the expansion of the regulation state and the ever growing bureauocracy completely away.

Another problem of which most people generally agree is that politics have become too poll driven. The repeal of the 17th would be a nice step in the right direction at alleviating this tendency. Since a Senator who is appointed by a state legislature does not have to be concerned with his own popularity, his reliance on polls would be decreased. Instead, he/she would be more concerned with the support of his state's legislature- again moving control away from the federal government back to the states.

The Constitution set up a nice set of checks and balances. The federal government and the states. The three branches of government with each other. The two houses of the legislature (one publicly elected, one not) against each other. And the constitution was a check on direct democracy itself. The 17th amendment changed the balance of these checks, the results have been the opposite of what was intended, and it should be repealed (or replaced with something that says each state will determine for itself how the Senate seats for it are determined, be it by election or by appointment or whatever).

Well, I can tell you one way not to go about it. When you are faced with a party that is infested with corrupt liberals and commie loving socialists (the Democrats) and they enjoy the support of nearly half of the voting populace, you do not splinter the one and only opposition party that has the strength to combat them. This will only ensure that the liberals remain in power and that the wholesale destruction of our rights continues on unabated.

On the other hand, the people -- such as myself -- who try to hold our representative's feet to the fire are valuable in the political process, as well. It is important that someone say something if our guys drift ever-leftward.

It's natural for a party in power to splinter somewhat. The only thing that prevented that from occuring with Clinton is the fact that, since he had a scandal-a-day, the Democrats of every oddball stripe needed to coalesce to prevent their guy from falling. If the Dem's tried a scandal-a-day attack on him, we'd probably rally around him as well.

But with high approval numbers and no impeachment in sight, we feel free to give him crap for the positions he's adopted that we feel are very wrong.

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.