Posted on 05/07/2016 12:00:26 PM PDT by Lorianne
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have done America a great deal of good. By running from the political fringes, they have shattered status quo taboos and exposed the two party political system for the monumental sham it is.
Whether you like either one of them is irrelevant. The truth about how undemocratic our elections actually are, and the disturbing overlap when it comes to establishment Republicans and Democrats needed exposing, and that’s exactly what’s happened this election season. Personally, I wanted to see Trump vs. Sanders in the general election. I think the public deserved two non-mainstream choices for President for once in their lives, and such a match up would have provided two distinct non status quo visions for the future. That said, Trump vs. Clinton is the second best option.
The process of awakening that’s been happening across the electorate this campaign season is in large part due to the presence of Trump and Sanders, and this awakening is far more important than who wins in November. As Edward Snowden was quoted saying in yesterday’s piece, A Whistleblower Manifesto:
Fundamentally, in an open society, change has to flow from the bottom to the top.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertyblitzkrieg.com ...
Thankfully we have Donald Trump as the alternative. He might be 69 but like Ronald Reagan, he came along at just the right time to save us from the horrible alternatives.
All he has to do now is choose an appropriate VP, one without a speck of RINO on him/her and its showtime!
America would have been a lot better off over the last half century if political parties were outlawed.
I’ve read all the articles and essays about why that isn’t a good idea but I still believe that the democrats and republican parties have done more bad than good.
They believe that they, and only they, have the right to run the government.
The two parties may engage in some public spats and name calling but it always boils down to just a sideshow for the rubes.
Then they go back to jointly looting the treasury and finding cushy jobs for their pals and in-laws.
Just look at the reaction to outsider Trump’s success - republicans are aghast that an outsider dares to challenge their province.
And democrats aren’t real happy with Bernire’s challenge of Hillary but not as upset as republicans because they know the outcome has already been rigged to give Hillary the nomination.
But we all know that the Founding Fathers intende for us to have a government comprised of the people - not a ruling class of professional politicians with family dynasties swapping the throne of power every few terms.
the fact that with in the last 100 years we have seen families like the bushes the Clintons and the Kennedys try and start political family dynasties shows how astray are politics have gotten. if trump wins I am hoping that his kids realis that fallowing in there dads footsteps and seeking the presidency 12-29 years from now might not be in the countries best interest...Trump has raised some very competent kids I hope they work in other area then politics where there competency can shine.......WE Don’t need any more family dynasties.
We need DT to be good at beginning the multi-generational process of restoring the former American Republic ..
“Already, (Clinton) aides say, a number of Republicans have privately told Clinton and her team they plan to break party ranks and support her as soon as Trump formally captures his party’s nomination.
“We have an informed understanding that we could have the potential to expect support from not just Democrats and independents, but Republicans, too,” said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. “There’s a time and place for that support to make itself known.”
Many high-profile neocons and their pundit surrogates, and other status-quo RINOs and globalists, will time their endorsements for the day Trump is nominated to attempt maximum damage. These are true Fifth-Columnists. If nothing else, we will finally and unarguably see the true face of the enemies united against the American people. They must have one of their own in power. If it can’t be Jeb, it must be Hillary. Two sides of the same coin.
Here is my dilemma: if Trump restores the rule of law without some form of punishment against those who flagrantly violated it these past eight years, then the message will be that Democrats have permission to ignore the law when they control the government.
We have not seen a Republican administration that was willing to punish past governments for their political over-reaches. The closest in my memory was when the Democrat-led Congress went after Scooter Libby related to the Valerie Plame affair, before that with Reagan on Iran-Contra, and before that with Nixon on Watergate, all resulting in convictions and jail time for some involved.
Republicans have been afraid to do anything against Democrats of any significance beyond show hearings with no punishments. Impeaching Bill Clinton in the House was the strongest (and last) that Republicans dared to try.
So restoring the rule of law is good, but it is not enough to prevent Democrats from just ignoring it again the next time they regain power. Somebody has to go to prison to make Democrats think twice about it from now on.
-PJ
Exactly!!
America is a Republic; of the people; by the people, for the people.
Democracy is MOB RULE (which is what the Democrat’s want.
John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 years old when the Declaration of Independence was written, defended and discussed by John and Abigail, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.
In 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."
I agree. I just didn’t think it was necessary to write a paragraph to explain such.
The republic died in 1865. Time to restore it.
By that, I do not mean the reinstitution of slavery. I do mean a weak central government controlled by strong states.
I disagree with the premise that Trump is running from the political fringe. Trump’s positions are mainstream Americans positions the have been squelched by 30 years of globalist economic war against he US middle class. The false song of globalism is going to be extinguished hopefully by President Trump.
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.
