Posted on 07/06/2002 2:31:54 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
"Founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson, Free Republic is a loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support our Constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government."
What is our mission? "Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic." Jim Robinson has listed a great deal more worthwhile information and detail concerning the mission and a description of Free Republic. The current mission statement has been edited from an earlier version to account for past events. The original mission statement included language advocating the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, then President of the United States. Free Republic accomplished that portion of its mission statement by playing a central role in the events culminating in the successful vote in the House of Representatives to Impeach William Jefferson Clinton. For its role in the impeachment, Free Republic is an unequivocal and unqualified success.
However in evaluating and measuring Free Republic's performance with regard to the larger and by far the more significant role, "reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and a complete restoration of our constitutional republic", I think the leadership and members of Free Republic need to refocus their thinking. By using any yardstick of your own choosing, there are few if any parameters in which conservatives can claim any improvement. And in any small victories that might have occurred, I would ask that you point out the role played by Free Republic in bringing it about. In short, I think that Free Republic has lost its focus on its most important reason for being.
Before offering my suggestions for getting back on track, I would like offer some thoughts on how and why we have become distracted from the primary focus as so eloquently stated by Jim Robinson:
The two courses of action most likely to offer a speedy and effective return to our Constitutional Republic are political and judicial. The left has used judicial appointments very effectively against the Constitution. Reagan advanced the task of recovering the federal judiciary, but we still have a long way to go in this area. Nevertheless, strategic use of the courts could be a very effective weapon in our arsenal. I think this should be the topic of some very serious discussions on how we can use the courts to attack existing unconstitutional government actions, laws and regulations. It takes someone to bring an action, and some legal thought to make such efforts productive. Forum shopping and plaintiff seeking are actively used by our opposition. I think this is an area where we can do much more than we have been doing.
And that brings us to the area of the greatest interest to us all. And it is in this arena that we are more likely to bring the quick results that we all desire. Well thought out, carefully crafted political activism can be effective. And each election offers opportunities to build on prior successes and to learn from prior mistakes. I will proffer that we have done little more than chat or indulge in wishful thinking. Our attempts at organized planning, coordination or unification of efforts, orderly assignment of tasks and delegation of responsibilities have been largely non-existent. All volunteer labor is hard to harness and effectively deploy. But it is not impossible.
Our computers and the internet provide the means to share and coordinate our efforts. It could also provide the means of choosing our leaders, delegation of tasks and responsibilities, and our most powerful weapon in recruiting new talents. Every human on the planet that has an internet connection has access to our materials and our efforts. It is a means to make our voices heard and to recruit more voices.
Everyone that frequents this site has visions of making their voice heard and making their vote count. Individually our voices are lost in the crowd noise. And even with our dismal lack of voter turnout, there were still more than 100 million votes cast in the last presidential election. It is difficult to know that your vote counted when it constitutes such a small part of the total vote. Political parties make a difference in the outcomes of elections by pooling the votes of like-minded individuals. Political candidates exercise power because each supporter transfers a portion of their individual power to the candidate. Coalitions gain power by pooling the individual powers of their members.
Free Republic can exercise the power of a coalition through uniting behind either common candidates or common issues or both. By acting as a unit, we can multiply our political effectiveness considerably. By recruiting and enlarging or attracting new members or supporters, we can multiply our effectiveness even more. We have proved that we can be effective. Ask the House managers and other members of the House how Clinton came to be impeached in spite of all the efforts of the media to prevent it.
We are approaching another election in a few months. Traffic on this site will increase progressively as we get closer to election day. Our political clout and power will increase exponentially as our viewing numbers increase. No matter what anyone wishes, the polls will be relatively close and the outcome of the election uncertain until the polls are closed. We will only have a good idea of the outcome when the exit polls and returns begin to come in. Before Election Day, the closer the polling data and the more uncertain the outcome of the election, the more our votes and our voices will matter. The more unified we are leading up to the election, the more our voices will be heard, and the more our votes will be courted.
We will have zero influence on Democratic voters or candidates. Any efforts directed at Democratic candidates will be a complete waste of our time and resources. Almost all directed at Democratic votes will have the same sad results. But our efforts directed at Republican voters and candidates can have a tremendous impact on the election and more importantly on the campaign leading up to the election. And surprisingly, our efforts in this election could have an even greater impact on the election of 2004.
FreeRepublic has the power within its grasp to achieve its mission and change the course of history. Organization, delegation, and unity of purpose are the keys to success. On another thread, I have offered what I believe to be one solution to the problem. There may be others. That is what the mission of this forum is about. Let's Roll!
The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.
The Prosecuting Attorney argued:
While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:
Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .
We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].
The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:
Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:
Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:
Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.
The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.
The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.
To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.
No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .
Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.
While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.
The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day." The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests."President Andrew Jackson
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools."Benjamin Rush
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."President John Quincy Adams
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity."President John Quincy Adams
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."Patrick Henry
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster
"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others."Patrick Henry
"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"Benjamin Franklin
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.
President Washingtons Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, 1789
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." President George Washington
"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained."President George Washington
It is hoped that by God's assistance, some of the continents in the Ocean will be discovered....for the Glory of God. Christopher Columbus
The Mayflower Compact, November 11th, 1620
"All persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the One Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall in no wise be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion or practice, in matters of faith and worship; nor shall they be compelled at any time to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever." April 25, 1662- William Penn signed this to establish religious liberty in the new provence of (Pennsylvania).
Excerpts from the Declaration to take up arms, July 6th, 1775
Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.","Give me liberty or give me death."Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention
"A general dissolution of Principles and Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader . . . If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."Samuel Adams, 1779
"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Abraham Lincoln.
"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."Abraham Lincoln.
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty" Abraham Lincoln.
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.President Harry S. Truman.
What a goofy statement. I doubt the founding fathers thought you had a constitutional right to stick a needle in your arm, or have your 8 year old kid sell crack on the street corner. The libertarians here on this site are less like the founding fathers and more like Curly, Larry and Moe dressed in powdered wigs.
Member since the Buchanan wars, and some time before that, got drunk and forgot my password during a manditory resign up.
I don't think William F. Buckley is a Jesus Freak?
I disagree completely. The IRS code is thousands of pages in length. When it is less than ten, that will be a measurable difference
The Code of Federal Regulations is tens of thousands of pages in length. When I can memorize it in a couple of days, it will be a measurable difference.
I own a potentially valuable tract of land in an environmentally sensitive area. I have been prevented from getting permits to subdivide and develop it for ten years. When I don't need any permits, that will be a measurable difference.
When you can buy toilet that will actually flush, that will be a measurable difference.
When Social Security is completely private and your retirement is none of the government's business, that will be a measurable difference.
When what your doctor charges and your health insurance premium are none of the government's business, that will be a measurable difference.
When government is not in any insurance business, that will be a measurable difference.
When gold is money, that will be a measurable difference.
I could fill the website's capacity with measurable differences. And so could you, if you had thought before you replied.
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.