It's from The Sierra Times, so what did you expect? That site is Drama Queen Central.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 01/21/2006 4:40:33 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
There has been quite a fuss in Sodom on the Potomac of late due to the revelations of a certain Mr. Abramoff and the money he so promiscuously passed around in his lobbying activities to people who should have known better than to take it--both Republicans and Democrats.
One of those tainted by this situation, Tom DeLay, is stepping down as Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, which opens up somewhat of a race for his spot. So far there seem to be three people vying for that spot. One e-mail message I received from a conservative activist tells everyone to voice their support for John Shadegg from Arizona, as opposed to the other two. Supposedly Mr. Shadegg is the "real deal" when it comes to being conservative. In comparison to the other two he may be somewhat more conservative.
I noted on the John Birch Society's recent "Conservative Index" that Mr. Shadegg received a rating of 60 out of a possible 100 points for his conservative votes. Passable, but not great, when you consider that Ron Paul from Texas received 100 out of a possible 100.
I realize the sincerity of the conservative activist who sent this e-mail, but here again, is a prime example of someone who has not been taught true history. The title of his e-mail was "Move the GOP Back to its Conservative Roots." The writer laments how many Republican members of Congress seem to have moved to the left as they have spent time in Washington (it seems to have that effect on most people) and he exhorts them to return to their "conservative roots." Again, I appreciate his sincerity and intent, but I surely can not agree with him that the Republican Party has any "conservative roots." In fact, quite the opposite is true if you look at a little of the history of the beginnings of the GOP.
When the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, back in 1856, Fremont had the open backing of several men who were socialist refugees from the failed socialist revolts in Europe in 1848. One of the most well-known of these was Friedrich Hassaurek, an Austrian socialist, who stumped the Midwest in Fremont's behalf. It did no good, though, at that point, and Fremont was beaten. However, it is worth noting that when the War of Northern Aggression broke out in 1861, General Fremont ended up with a goodly number of these socialist and communist Forty-Eighters on his military staff while the war was in progress. The Forty-Eighters seem to have flocked to Fremont. What did they know about him that our "history" books have not bothered to inform us of?
Although Fremont was beaten in 1856, the socialists and communists were nothing if not patient. In 1860 they found another candidate they could and did support--Abraham Lincoln. So Hassaurek, Carl Schurz, and a whole host of other Forty-Eighter socialists were all involved in the presidential campaign of 1860 supporting Mr. Lincoln. Carl Wittke, author of "Refugees of Revolution" has noted that: "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaign of 1860, in presuading many of their countrymen to desert the Democratic alliegiance for the Republicans..." It would appear that the Forty-Eighters had quite a bit of influence in the Republican convention in 1860--even to helping to write parts of the party's platform.
Court historian James McPherson informed us in his book "Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" that Mr. Lincoln had championed the cause of the socialists and communists in Europe in 1848, so why would he not embrace their unstinting support during his own presidential asperations in 1860? One might almost label this "the Red roots of the Republican Party."
If socialists and communists supported both Fremont in 1856 and Lincoln in 1860 and 1864, we can hardly label the beginnings of the Republican Party as "conservative." The roots of the Republican Party were anything but conservative--deep pink maybe, but not conservative! Our decent patriotic folks in this country should be aware of this so they will not be guilty of trying to take us back to Republican "conservative" roots that never really existed. It is true that the Republicans had taken a more conservative turn in the late 1940s and 50s, and even through the early 60s, but that was out of political necessity and it hardly reflects the real foundation and origin of the GOP.
It is interesting that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives and the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals. People today should know the difference. The fact that many don't reveals the sad fact that most of us were "educated" in government schools where our real history was never taught to us and what we received in most cases was decidedly leftist propaganda paraded by us as "history." Sadly, nothing has changed and our people still perish from lack of knowledge.
Fremont was beaten in 1856, the socialists and communists were nothing if not patient. In 1860 they found another candidate they could and did support--Abraham Lincoln.
in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives and the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals. People today should know the difference.
Unfortunately for America, today's DemocRAT Party is 100% socialist, with many belonging openly to Communist front groups. The Republican Party is probably 40% socialist, 20% "moderate" (whatever that means) and 40% conservative.
We're in trouble and have been for decades.
There is so much gubmint money floating around, so the common thinking goes, "I ought to get my share of free money for what I need. Who would miss the small stack of "free" money I want?"
"The other folks are greedy and undeserving but, I, of course, am the exception. The money I need to receive from the gubmint is certainly what I so richly deserve and the very least Washington can do for lil' ol' me, with the billions they have laying around."
You make too much sense.
Whether or not conservatives ever controlled the party isn't important. What's important is that we gain control now. If we run a "moderate" in 2008 then we better start building a Conservative Party nationally because we are through in the Republican Party.
That was during a time when abolitionism was driving force behind the Republican party. Many American socialists like Wendell Phillips became Republcians. The socialists viewed slaves, slavery and the struggle for negro freedom as a living example of Marxist doctrine. After the war most of the Marxists abandoned their Republican ties and waged a new war of propaganda against industry and commerce.
Which is why it will take decades to turn the tide back and wean the people from that "gubmint money".
We need patience and progress. Unfortunately, too many on our side do not acknowledge the progress we have made and they lack the patience needed to ensure long-term victory.
The reality is that to win nationally, a party HAS to be a big tent party.
A faction can't spend all it's time chasing out those who have different viewpoints without destroying the party.
The writer is pushing liberal montra and historical revisionism. The problem with the pubs is they are cowards and fools, the left is communist, and conservatism is past tense in D.C.
It's from The Sierra Times, so what did you expect? That site is Drama Queen Central.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Get over it Benson, republicans freed the slaves and passed the civil rights act.
[That site is Drama Queen Central.]
Figures.
Does "support" in a couple of elections determine the "roots" of a party? I am sure at some point that KKK Clan factions "supported" a Republican candidate over another.
Does that make Republicans "Nazis" and "Racists"?
I have been losing faith in the Republican party since Reagan left office.
They gave us 41...understandable because he was the VP, but clearly he did not do much to further the "revolution". Can you say "kinder, gentler"?
They gave us the CWA in 1994. A great idea that they pi$$ed away.
They gave us Bob Dole. Great man, but an also-ran for a candidate and a RINO by "I've been a Senator too long" default. I could go on.
But this article relies on a faulty premise, and we just need to get someone remotely possessing a pair to at least TRY to act like Reagan again. Bush came close, but he's very selective about his conservatism. That confusion makes movements fleeting at best.
Well said. The now corrupt republican party was an offshoot of the early Christian fathers heritage, the liberal democrats have always been racist and secular humanist and have used revisionist history as a weapon to change our historical roots.
For instance, how many people know that the heritage of the KKK were a group of southern democrats malcontents that began after the civil war, wore red shirts as a secret idenification to their own, and started lyching and killing blacks when they began to run for political office? Not many I bet.
And why is it that most if not all of today's KKK members are democrats and run for political office in the democrat party? David Duke, Robert Bird, etc.
I disagree. There is another long-term solution - change the hearts and minds of enough citizens, so that your "faction" becomes the majority. Otherwise, IMO you've already admitted defeat (that your faction's ideas can ever be accepted with the greater public), and you've declared the most effective way to win at politics is to become a "moderate" or "populist".
Sanitary?
Certainly this is one of the biggest problems and people tend to forget that government has no money - it is your money! - there are NO free lunches or government hand outs. Do you suppose this numbed down thinking originates from our public school system? Or is it Hillary thought - "we'll provide for you"...I think Al Gore said about the same thing.
You can gain control without chasing them out. It's all about which side sets the agenda and pushes it through. The Contract with America was a conservative agenda that proved to be a winner. We allowed the moderates to derail it and haven't recovered from it to this day. All I'm saying is let's make sure we control the agenda.
Like those on this site who tried to chase out critics of the Harriet Meyers SC choice?
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.