Free Republic

The only people that can destroy America are Americans...specifically our oun government. Our government is the only force that can destory america.

A dependent populace parented by an ever expanding nanny state will not achieve great things. Bush has created more dependency, more powerful and intrusive government. This is more dangerous to America that any terrorist network.

A terrorist may kill many Americans. But America will survive. But America can be destoried from the inside.

Bush has proven that appeasement does not work. He has repeatedly appeased the democrats with his own furthering of that which is destroying America.

I'm not voting pragmatically ..the lesser of two evils again.

If Bush wants my vote he'll have to switch course and combat the socialism that is destroying this once great country.

Fear of Kerry is not enough. That's what the dems do to the blacks. Use fear of rep to get them to vote.

Bush treats us like dems treat blacks. They expect us to hold our nose and vote for him no matter what he does.

Not me...I'm off the plantation.

Bin Laden may kill me but Bin Laden cannot take away my freedon.

Bin Laden cannot bankrupt this country.

Only our elected leaders have that power.

The effects of the terror attack are gone...except for the fear that politicians capitalize on.

Bush's liberalism will have far far longer lasting ill effects than 9/11.

Oh....The "got to have it now" generation looks to government to do what they should do themselves.

Bush is more than willing to help. Its "compassionate".

It is easy to be compassionate with anothers money.

Another Bush vote buying scheme. He has learned well from Ted Kennedy.

If you vote for him he'll just continue to do what you don't like.

He gets re-elected and says, "See folks. We can do whatever we want....and they'll still vote for us".

You wrote, "If you vote against Bush or stay home, you vote to kill unborn babies. Go look in the mirror the next day, if you can."

Did you think this when Reagan nominated all those "conservative" judges that now say there is a RIGHT to sodomy in the constitution and that Congress CAN make a law restricting the freedom of speech?

Did you think those "conservative" Reagan appointees would overturn Roe vs Wade?

If so what do you think now?

If you think Bush's appointees would do diffrent than Reagan's...well, I hope you are right but I fear that you are not.

And get off your self-righteous perch! You have no idea of what I and my family do for the pro-life movement...in the trenches! It is wrong not make such blanket statements about people you do not know.

Why should Bush alter course on his big government policies if conservatives will vote for him anyway??

The only clout conservative have is to not vote for big government republicans.

Support true conservative republicans, if you can find one, but "W" is treating us like dems treat Blacks.

They expect us to vote for him because the dem is so much worse. It's a republican version of "if a republican is elected Black churches will burn".

Well...I'm leaving Bush's plantation.

Bush treats conservatives like the dems treat Blacks. He assumes we have nowhere else to go.

Well....this conservative is leaving the Bush plantation. I'll not vote for anyone who increases the scope and power of government.

I'll vote constitution party.

Bush pisses on conservatives and tells us he buy us a rain coat.

So, Congress made a law on a topic that the Constitution says, "Cogress shall make no law...", and the President says congress can make a such a law, and then the SC says, " it's OK for Congress to make a law..." even though the constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...".

Do we have a legitmate government?

All three branches have agreed to openly violate the letter and the spirit of the constituion. I say we have no obligation to submit to arbitary law.

We are now a nation under the rule of tyrants, not the rule of law.

What should be our response?

But like good Americans....we'll do no more than complain (we do not wish to upset the government too much) and vote GOP when the time comes. Won't We?

P.S. Not m, I'm leaving the GOP plantation. The GOP treats conservatives the way the Dems treat blacks. Rove dares us to not vote for Bush.

I'm calling his bluff.

Tyrannts always hate the battle flag.

As for me, I'll vote third party. Probably Constitution Party.

Republicans are treating me like democrats treat blacks-assume they will vote for them because they have nowhere else to go.

Well, this Southerner is leaving the GOP's plantation.

With a screen name like "July 4th" you should be outraged that a president would trade freedom for partisian poiticial advantage.

Those men who took a stand on July 4th did not put their lives on the line for the tyranny American is rapidly becoming. Those patriots are turning in their graves today.

From now on, I will vote for someone who believes in defending the constitution. That means voting third party.

Never again will I vote for anyone who expands government power, encourages dependency, refuses to enforce the 2nd Amendment, or refuses to defend our borders.

I will vote third party before I vote for a socialist in republican clothing.

Bush is on the record as saying he will SIGN the semi-auto import ban. O'Conner is a Reagan appointee. Isn't Kenndy a Reagan appointee as well?

Point is: there are no guarantees that Bush will appoint a pro Bill of Rights judge, nor is there any guarantee that he even wants one.

This is no longer a nation under the rule of law The Constitution is dead.

I hope it does not rest in peace but will be resurrected by a freedom loving patriots.

The republicans will continue to do this until we stop voting for them. They think real constitutional conservatives have no other place to go.

Well....I'm voting for the Taxpayer or Constitution party next time.

You are wrong on both points:

1. We are not promoting religion. That has been debunked so cleanly that only someone with a religious axe to grind can still throw it out there.

Cite one time the government required someone to be christian to do something. If Judge Moore is sooooo scary it should be easy to find the instance when he forced some one to accept his religion.

Sorry, walking past a monument doesn't do that. I've walked past statues of Budda but I didn't become a Buddist.

If the government was going to establish a religion they would have done it when christianity was far more accepted than today. Say in the early 1800's.

This argument is a straw man.

2. It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom. The Founders surely didn't think so thats why the states are a check on fed power per the 10th Amendment. I thought libertarians considered the Founders important.

The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable.

I see the state reps and senators all the time. It's a first name basis. And I have attacked one mercilessly. State officals can't hide and can be held to account more easily.

Not so with the feds. Federal officals take months to even reply with a form letter to your correspondence. They have such power it takes million of dollars to defeat them at the pools. The difference is obvious.

And FEDERAL JUDGES! JUDGES are nearly invincible! A corrupt judge or court is almost invincible. It is extremely hard to them to account in any realistic way.

IF you do not like your state government you can move. There are some states I will not even visit. Can't do that with the feds!

So you are wrong on both counts.

If the decision wasn't totally contrary to the intent of the founders there would be a sense of finality.

So you accept the Nuremberg Defence! That is not an accepted defence in a court of law.

There is a "higher" law. A law that over rules the "authorities ordered me to do it" defence.

What, pray tell, is the source of that "higher law"?

That may well be right! It may be that christians SHOULD NOT work for government.

But think of what you are creating. A monlitihic system with absolute power an no defiance allowed or justified. You accecpt the Nuremberg Defence.

When the court acts in a clearly unconstitutional way it ought to be defied by someone in power. It's called interposition. It was right to defy Dred Scott and it is right to defy this.

So you say that whatever the SC says is LAW and we must sumbit. Like the Dred Scott decision?

If you are serious, you endorse the judical tyranny that has developed.

At some point common sense must rule.

The founders believed that good men would sit on the courts.

Any supposedly educated judge who says that the founders intended to forbid displays of the like this and forbid any reference to the God of the bible in the public arena is LIAR and wants to usurp POWER! It's that simple.

Never in their wildest dreams did the founders intend to prevent what Judge Moore did. This is a federal power grab pure and simple. Bibilical christianity has always opposed tyrannts. The next generation must be de-christianized, or at least statist christians to further their tyrannical desires.

Sadly, too many christians are already statists.