Our Republic and Our Free Republic

Perhaps if you had read the thread you would have seen that FJIC was vociferously arguing a position without having read the thread.

Hence my comment.

And sir....I was NOT the one who accused others of wasting bandwidth. At least have the courage to take responsibility for your own comments.

"No matter what you look like," she read, "no matter what you do, everybody likes to say" — and here everyone chimed in —

"Wubba, wubba, woo!"

Laura Bush

I am with Thomas Jefferson and his statement

"That governs best that governs least"

Ronald Reagon tried to make government smaller.

If one is sucessful in making governmnet ever and ever smaller logically you reach the point where there is no more government left to be made smaller.

The spectrum of government is from 100% control as in Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, etc., to 0% control as in the true meaning of the word anarchy.

For anyone not to realize that our early American west lacked all governmnet control is to deny the historical facts. The folks who explored, settled and civilized it were mostly good people who lived in peace, were helpfiul to each other and they were the backbone of this country right behind the founding fathers in importance.

Another way to look at it is that if government takes 100% of what you produce you are 100% slave. If government takes none of what you produce your are 100% free.

So if one works for ever and ever less government and its interference in our lives one is moving in the direction of anarchy. If one works for ever and ever increasing amounts of government control of our lives one is moving in the direction of Communism.

The constituional republic as established by our forefathers was truely the middle position of government control. In order that it once again become the "middle of the road" where most folks are comfortable, there must be some who intellectually at least advovcate and articulate even less government than that.

If you want to spend an absolutely delightful evening please rent Lerner and Lowe's musical "Paint Your Wagon" with Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and Jean Seberg. Listen closely to the dialogue even in the songs. It is about the anarchial gold rush days of our west. If you can't find it to rent, I have a dual deck VCR and I would be happy to make a copy for you and send it to you, at no costs to you. If you would like me to do this just Freepmail your snail mail address and I will do it today and get it on its way.

If I implied that conservatives should just stay home in general, it was a mis-statement on my part. The intention was that you should vote for a genuine conservative candidate that supports the Contract with Congress or has actively campaigned to support the Constitution and their actions have confirmed that intention. By the same token, there will be a number of races across the country where such a candidate will not be present in the race. My firmest political belief formed about 25 years ago when a "friend" of mine entered politics and ran as a Democrat in a traditionally Democratic district. I voted for him knowing his conservative background well. He voted with the Boll Weevils in Reagan's first rounds of cuts and I voted for him in a subesequent race, but he began to vote more and more with the Democrats. I sat down one day with him at the golf course and questioned him. He said, I have been studying this issue from broader perspectives than yours, "I just don't see the demand for smaller government or the lowering of government spending." NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT! And if there is no genuine conservative in the race, don't vote in that race.

I realize some of you will take issue with not voting for any Republicans, particularly in local races. It is my belief that local Republicans can bring immense power to bear on the party if they feel threatened with defeat as a result of the My Vote is for Sale strategy. So far, I have been very disappointed that I have not been able to generate any/enough support to make the Contract with Congress threaten the Republican hierarchy or even some current incumbents. Until we can generate that level of interest, our efforts will gain little sympathy for local candidates from the Republican hierarchy. As such, local candidates will not leverage our positions yet or on the 2004. Please do not think this is a "this election/next few months effort". This is a two year plus program. My expectations are that the Republican leadership and most current Republican candidates are not going to be receptive to our demands in this election. It is in the 2004, where I believe we will see the pay-offs of our efforts. And it is the defeat of liberal/non-conservative Republican candidates in this election that will make the Republican leadership/hierarcy and other Republican candidates take notice of our demands in 2004. Our efforts now will lead to the adoption of the Contract with Congress as the central campaign theme for 2004 just as the Contract with America was in 1994. And we need to make enough noise in this election season and results that the President pays attention. And in 2004, if we have made progress in 2002, leveraging our voting power with local candidates could have a significant effect. I have one local race where there is an open seat with good Republican running. I will be voting for him. There is another race where the local Republican is not vulnerable. I will not be voting for him, in spite of his excellent record on local issues. He has voted in the past to enhance the power of both state and municipal governments over property owners. I can not and will not overlook his votes against my property rights and the environmental restrictions he voted to impose.

Your "A team" has the luxury of never having had to have put its money where it's mouth is, hasn't it? Got a proven record? What makes you so smart that you can't manage to find 1) somebody to elect and 2) somebody to elect him.

You haven't elected jack.

Wrong. We've elected a majority of R's to Congress when we thought we had conservatives to vote for - Contract with America. We voted out Bill Clinton when we gun owners and other conservatives thought we had a conservative to vote for. We've elected a majority of R's as governors in state elections in the past 10 years.

We've also elected Dems when we sit out elections or vote third party. That is what got the GOP's attention and brought about the Contract with America. It got their attention to the point that Bush talked conservative and he won the primary and the general.

Now I'm not sure who "we" are...maybe "we" are the actual conservatives that believe in less government, recognition of all ten of the first amendments, etc...that's where I fall. I'm not a registered libertarian and I'm not a dope smoker. I'm part of the "we" that demands our elected officials keep their word, reduce government and respect their oath of office. That's the "we" that I'm part of.

I'm damned sure that "we" have acomplished more than "jack."

And if enough R's keep voting Socialist Lite than this "we" you keep talking about will damn sure sit out the next election and hand the GOP huge losses. And "we" will keep doing that until the party aparatus figures out "we" actually vote based upon our principles for conservatives that keep their word and not for whomever the Party tells us to vote for.

...rent Lerner and Lowe's musical "Paint Your Wagon" with Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and Jean Seberg.

______________________________________

I love that movie. Especially when Marvin commandeers that wagon full of women.

It is one of my favorites too. : )

Joe wrote: And you have not considered the danger in the Patriot Act. I see little difference.

With VaBthang4's permission, I post his comments on this issue for your consideration. I could not have commented better..so why reinvent the wheel.

--------------------------------------------------------

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Please Read Before You Respond

Not one single American has lost a right that they didn’t already have before this Administration took office.

That is the bottom line. Not Padilla, Not Taliban Johnny not the “I spent the first six months of my life in America” Saudi in Norfolk. Not one of the Al Qaeda clowns up in Buffalo. Everything done with all of them is according to present law, constitutionally sound.

Until you have a single ruling made by the Supreme Court that anything currently taking place is unconstitutional then by definition the above statement is fact. It may well be that they do make a ruling in the future that something being done was unconstitutional but until that time you have no basis to assert that the Bush Administration is knowingly and intentionally violating anyone's constitutional rights.

Plain and simple.

There has been a tremendous amount of Federal Government creep in our country that has occurred ever since the civil war. It is something to vigilantly monitor and address but it is separate from the current discussion of preventing further terrorist attacks against our nation and removing Saddam Hussein from power. The spirit of the two and the motivating factors involved are wholly separate.

No law has been past removing a single right any American has. No law has been passed that unlawfully detains any American. The closest anyone can come to implying that possibly one has been detained is by linguistically asserting that nobody knows for certainty that there isn’t detained at GITMO an individual born in our country.

That is a completely laughable basis for asserting that a broad brush of anti-rights legislation [The only thing that takes away our rights] has taken hold of our Nation since September 11th, and to be discarded as nonsensical approach to discussing the subject.

TIPS isn’t a law and even if it were it wouldn’t remove a single right spelled out by our forefathers. Detaining Americans as Material witnesses is a legal practice and has been for decades.

Our Nation is under a very cogent threat of Biological as well as nuclear attack. This is not 1776 where we’ll be able to rally the minutemen to protect the Nation from a developing invasion. If it is Biological or Nuclear [The ultimate threats] it is fulfilled the minute the attack is launched and cannot be effectively thwarted or contained by our Government. Prevention is the only way to orient ourselves towards and overcome these threats.

Representing the Constitution and fighting to maintain its integrity is a necessary requirement in our Nation. Adolescent, knee-jerk outbursts at the hint of responsible Government action is not. The Government is tasked to promote the welfare and maintain the peace in our nation. The threat we face requires preemption. You don’t have to like that this threat doesn’t fit into your little 18th 19th or even 20th Century box but it is what it is.

I actually read one person on another thread actually imply that there would be an acceptable honor is losing his life and the lives of hundreds of thousand, possibly millions of his fellow Americans to a Nuclear attack by terrorists if his actions in promoting his interpretation of the constitution enabled it to occur.

Simply amazing…

…and completely contrary to any decision that our founding Fathers would make. Does any one here want to assert that Thomas Jefferson would sacrifice millions of American lives [remember that there were only three million when he was around] because our government wasn’t doing exactly what he wanted it to do, how he wanted it done right here, right now?

Grow up.

The threats posed to us now develop in nanoseconds and are complete in their design in minutes. Methods simply have to be in place that can begin to grasp and prevent these threats from manifesting.

One single Nuclear detonation in Washington DC with our government in place would easily lead to worldwide economic collapse, invasion of Democratic South Korea, Israel, Taiwan and possibly even the United States itself by foreign powers as well as the immediate suspension of civil law and the ordinance of Military rule. You wanna see your rights chewed up…wait for that to happen…

None of that is far-fetched or unreasonable to predict. It is the logical process were terrorists to detonate a nuclear bomb in our Nation’s capitol.

You may not like the fact that we now have these sort of responsibilities for other Nations but your personal like, dislike agreement or disagreement as to its constitutionality has no affect on the fact that the responsibilities are indeed there. Ignoring them or brushing them aside as unconstitutional is remarkably capricious.
At what point do you sober up and admit that the 1700’s are gone and they are never, ever coming back? At what point do you sober up and admit that this Government of ours or the relationships we now have with the rest of the World will never be dismantled from within to the size of our original government or the responsibilities shrunk to pre-1800 levels?

I am the first person to fight for our freedom of speech, our right to bare arms, free press, freedom of religion etc etc. and I am also the first one to admit that in order to defend all 280,000,000+ of us [Where we are today, not where you want us to be] from the threats we face, we are going to have to evaluate what priorities we have…

IMHO [And I suspect the Executive Branch of Governments opinion] the current priority is to defend this Nation from the threat of Nuclear Terrorism. It is not a manufactured threat, it is a very salient one and all else is subordinate to that defense, including your opinions, feelings and if needs be your unhindered rights.

Our Constitution is indeed the foundation that this Nation stands on but to honestly believe in the possibility of a return to the original state of national and international affairs that our Nation enjoyed when it was written and established is willfully infantile and ignorant. The argument for a return to our original Constitutional Government is by itself extremely unlikely but to argue for the desire now in light of the situation we are currently in is simply bitter and contrarian as well as not constructive.

If you do not agree then I find difficulty in you identifying yourself as either Conservative or American.

Step to the side and argue your purpose amongst yourselves but for now, Real Men are required to stand up and act [not talk] in order to defend our Nation. Right here, right now those actions will make our Nation safe…your rationale will not.

HERE

And the insightful retort will come back that the fourth amendment is being trampled. As if that trumps everything I wrote in that post.

It doesnt.

In the end none of these people can point to a single court ruling [The tool layed out by the Constitution to determine Constitutionality...not citizen opinion] that stipulates the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Contrarianistic ramblings about personal perspective is all you'll get. Well, that coupled with romantic notions of the equivalence to our founding Fathers who would obviously hamstring our current administration while it faces real and true Biological & Nuclear threats on CONUS. Then factor in their idea/fix of the spirit of 1776 flowing across their keyboards and you get completely irrational debate.

BS.

The inserttion of the word UNTILL is all it takes to refute this position.

By the time the Supreme court rules it constitutional it will be too late.

Eternal VIGILENCE is the price lIBERTY.

Bad Joe wrote:

BS.

The inserttion of the word UNTILL is all it takes to refute this position.

By the time the Supreme court rules it constitutional it will be too late.

Eternal VIGILENCE is the price lIBERTY.

VAbthang4 wrote:

"Not one single American has lost a right that they didn’t already have before this Administration took office."

"Until you have a single ruling made by the Supreme Court that anything currently taking place is unconstitutional then by definition the above statement is fact." .

My response:

I wonder if you REALLY read VaBthang4's post. The word "UNTIL" is quite visible. But that logic could be applied to ANY situation. IF you want to see bogeymen everywhere, no one can stop you. "What if" is another excellent obfuscation you could use to justify MOST fears.

I now offer my opinion re: this thread.

Joe, from the very first post you made here on this thread, it would seem that you are determined to live your life, and form your decisions, from a 'fear-based' position. In your world...all is lost, all is black, your world is doomed.

IMO...it is a HUGE leap from being concerned....to your position of being absolutely convinced that your fears are justified and basing all decisions on that fact. I suggest you should examine your premise(s) under the microsope of an objective third party. JUST to test your premise(s).

The majority of the people who have posted to you on this thread do NOT see your position, nor your actions of continuing to plead your case in public, as being rational. That should give you pause, imo.

Frankly my dear I do not give a damn what the majority thinks.

Our Nation is under a very cogent threat of Biological as well as nuclear attack. This is not 1776 where we’ll be able to rally the minutemen to protect the Nation from a developing invasion.

NEWS FLASH! This nation since it's first day has been under threat of attack. SINCE 1945 EVERY SINGLE DAY we have been under threat of a nuke attack either by a terrorist within our nation or a rouge nation. Chemical attacks have been a threat since WW1 I believe and again both domestic and foreign. Yes we had four planes hi-jacked and crashed into buildings. But memories are short to some. I remember in mid early 1970 a fool hi-jacked a jet and circled Oak Ridge, Tennessee threatening to crash it into the nuke weapons plants there. So much for the so called new threat huh? This is by no means nothing new despite the propaganda saying otherwise from Washington, DC.

In my Navy time 1970's we were training for NBC warfare and no I don't mean the media network. Don't let the so called cure become a part of the illness. BTW right now we can scarcely rally enough troops to cover our hides on peace time rotation. Rather than addressing a military build up to show military strenght our Idiotic lawmakers are passing laws punishing us for the acts of others. If we are at war and I think it's safe to say so, Our leaders have a rather blind and arrogant way of addressing it.

Through out history war means a strenghtening of military might not a continuing DOWNSIZING of it. Thank you Dick Cheney for your failures in that area. These so called new domestic programs are just diversions from the failures of the Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations, and congress, to deal with the problem in a military manner meaning military goals against the enemy and not domestic invasive goals against us. It goes back to Korea, Nam, and the Gulf War. We since that time have let the U.N. and other nations dictate our military and foreign policy goals as well as our wars. That is not a forgivable offense.

I swear I think some would be happy if this nation had a dictator running it as long as he called himself a member of the favored brand party.

****Frankly my dear I do not give a damn what the majority thinks.*****

Uh huh. Which is of COURSE why you decided to plead your case in public. On TWO threads, no less. Right. I see now.

Who are you trying to kid? If you didn't 'give a damn what the majority thinks' you would have kept your contretemps with JR private.

If you didn't 'give a damn what the majority thinks' you would have kept your contretemps with JR private.

PRECISELY !!!

Hahaha...female logic spots the obvious hypocrisy.

~grin~

justshe I dont care to respond. If I took his position seriously then perhaps I could find the requisite passion for retort.

Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists are delusionary and they whine for license under the guise of Liberty.

I take 19 year old Virginia Commonwealth University Freshmen Liberals more seriously than I do the above mentioned coterie. As completely ignorant as young Liberals are, at least their motives are pure.

I understand.

Energy expended on a fool's errand benefits the fool only.

~~grin~~

It got their attention to the point that Bush talked conservative and he won the primary and the general.

Oh really? You mean the part where he wanted to expand the Dept. of Education so that "no child is left behind", or the part where he wanted to let our tax dollars go to faith-based programs? Exactly when did you think Bush was a "true Conservative"?

He didn't run as a "true Conservative", and anyone who thinks they are betrayed now because they thought he was, either wasn't paying attention or is being quite ingenuous.

You complain that; "Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists are delusionary", yet you post delusions of your own:

Our Constitution is indeed the foundation that this Nation stands on but to honestly believe in the possibility of a return to the original state of national and international affairs that our Nation enjoyed when it was written and established is willfully infantile and ignorant.

No one at FR believes that we can return to such as a state of affairs. You delude yourself to claim so, or you claim so to decieve/delude others.

The argument for a return to our original Constitutional Government is by itself extremely unlikely but to argue for the desire now in light of the situation we are currently in is simply bitter and contrarian as well as not constructive.

Your old 'my country right or wrong' ploy has been soundly refuted by rational people that try to change such 'wrong' policies. The situation is not so dire that we must throw our civil liberties out the door at this point. You are demagoguing the current issues to make political hay.

If you do not agree then I find difficulty in you identifying yourself as either Conservative or American.

Gross hyperbole. For shame. A 19 year old Virginia Commonwealth University Freshmen Liberal could do better. - Hmmmmm.

"The A team is doing a fine job of pointing out the idiocy of voting for republican socialists."

There is nothing more idiotic than succumbing to the socialist criminal enterprise otherwise known as the Democrat Party. Voting third party is tantamount to offering aid and comfort to those whom are intent on destroying America. Do not chase the false third party utopian dream. The vast majority are not going to follow.

Splintering the right only ends up empowering the left. We should concentrate our fire on the real enemy, the socialist left of the Democrat Party. They are the breeding grounds of socialism and corruption and are the domestic enemies of Liberty in America. Socialism must die or Liberty dies.

Our Founders knew best when they created a republican form of government. Notice that they did not create a socialist form of government, nor a democracy, nor did they allow anarchy to reign supreme. They created a republican form of government and established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

I long for a return to the principles of that constitutionally limited government and Liberty for all as set forth by the Founders in the Declaration and the Constitution. Do not allow the Democrats to destroy that forever! And they surely will if we give up the fight and hand it all over to them.

"A Republic, Sir, if you can keep it!"

Divide and conquer is the oldest game in the book. Don't fall for it. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Retake the Republican Senate! Retake America!

Long live the Republic!