Free Republic's Roots

Private Web Site ^ | 11/01/05 | Hopeful Patriot

[HopefulPatriot]

Free Republic's Roots

Founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson, what is FreeRepublic about?

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. Listed below are some of the issues we feel strongly about...

• Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control... leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people.
• We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment..
• We call for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the income tax and the IRS.

A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment...This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. ~~ Jim Robinson, March 1999

Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side...We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism... Posted on 03/22/2004 6:22:17 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Free Republic's Next Triumph

    The excerpts above were taken from existing or former webpages posted by Jim Robinson. Having been a member of FreeRepublic before the 1996 election, the mission statement once included the impeachment of Bill Clinton as one of FreeRepublic's goals, a goal the House Managers credited FreeRepublic with achieving. Now, after ten years of false starts and misfires, the second and third goals as stated in FreeRepublic's Mission Statement above, ²reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and ³complete restoration of our constitutional republic, are finally within reach. Over the next several weeks, various Freepers will be posting the thinking and the mechanics behind this effort.

    Those of you who have been Freepers long enough know that FreeRepublic played a pivotal role in generating the momentum and emotion that led to a successful vote in the House to Impeach then President Bill Clinton. Reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and bringing about the complete restoration of our constitutional republic could depend on how effective Freepers and FreeRepublic prove to be in generating the kind of momentum and emotion that FreeRepublic produced during impeachment.

    Jim Robinson and the members of FreeRepublic are owed an immense debt of gratitude by Freedom loving Americans. You are all Patriots in the true sense of the word. We thank you; we Salute you. And now we ask for your help in undertaking the most important part of FreeRepublic's acknowledged mission.

Our Challenge To You:

    If you don't believe or cannot accept the idea that this plan can and will work, the burden of proof is on you to either improve it or put forward a replacement that is better. FreeRepublic has a long overdue mission to complete. In spite of some readily apparent Republican and conservative gains, it can be argued that we are not measurably closer to the objective than when FreeRepublic was founded. Those who would take issue with this claim should stop and consider that the unconstitutional entitlements are poised to grow exponentially over the next two decades. Get out your ping lists, start reviewing your address books and email lists, and start thinking about the people with whom you want to share this series as it unfolds or with whom you want to share it after it is complete and you are convinced.

Our Pledge to You:

    And for the support of this mission, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, We, as members of We the people pledge to the members of FreeRepublic and mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eastbound]

"Does this conjure up visions of Karl Marx or little parading Nazi youths in your mind?"

Not sure about what you are implying here. Would you elaborate more? Thanks.

[TigersEye]

Does this conjure up visions of Karl Marx or little parading Nazi youths in your mind?

No, it sure does not.

I have previously read this story of how and who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance. It doesn't impress me. It's irrelevant. Last year a town council member in my small hometown in the CO Rockies made a stink about "being forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance" and that "it was a religious test to be forced to say 'Under God.'" I wrote two letters to the editor explaining the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance and why this putz was wrong but neither letter was ever published. I sent copies to the mayor, all of the other council men/women and the putz.

Here is letter #1.

Here is letter #2.

It is interesting that you hold up the personality and character of the author of the PofA as having some validating/invalidating bearing on the pledge itself while, at the same time, you are asking us here to sign on to your pledge on the merits of its literary intent alone. With a complete and total lack of knowledge of the personality/s and character/s of it's author/s.

I think you might benefit from reading my explanation/defense of "under God" in the PofA.
Especially if you want people to sign a pledge that, so far, states 'conservative principles' as its aim.

FRegards, TigersEye

[Eastbound]

"I have previously read this story of how and who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance. It doesn't impress me. It's irrelevant"

So have I and you are exactly right. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is what we are thinking when we recite it, extending thanks to the K of C who put it in perspective.

Your letters to the ed. are remarkable, TI. Keepers for distribution. I think you made your point in fine style and you logic was impeccable. But then, I'm not the mayor. ;>

[Eastbound]

Ooops. 'you' = your

[HopefulPatriot]

"Also I am not pleased with the emphasis at post 134 on the socialist roots of the authors of the Pledge of Allegiance. The meaning and power is in the words not the history of it."

I am suprised that you feel that way. No one would disparage allegiance to a country that is doing "right" and living within the Constitution. Socialism is diametrically opposed to the Constitution and clearly not right or Constitutional. The intent of the post was to challenge the concept of allegiance to a Country, regardless of right or wrong. Our history and the writings of the Founders and the writings of those who drafted the Constitution clearly challenged future Americans to beware of the tendency of government to escape its Constitutional shackles and charged us with a duty to rein it back within the Constitution for the benefit of those who come after us.

" However, I shall not take your pledge at post 4 - my life is already pledged to Jesus Christ alone, He is my sacred honor - I have none of my own, nor do want any."

No one could fault such an elegant statement or such a noble committment.

"Because the political revelation is already raising alarms in my Spirit, please remove my name from your ping list.

I will of course comply with your wishes if you renew your request, but before doing so, I would like to ask what could possibly cause you alarm or anxiety about seeking to elect a group of legislators committed to bringing the federal government back within its Consitutional restraints in order to restore the freedoms that government has usurped from the people of the United States. Quite honestly, your request forces me to ask if you can see the paradox between such a request and a screen name that includes what may be history's greatest and noblest example of men freely sacrificing and laying down their lives so that the rest of us can have the benefits of freedom.

I have lived most of my adult life in Texas and now live less than 150 miles from the Alamo. I have been to Washington and seen all the historic buildings and memorials of this once great nation. Because of their need for restoration, it took three visits to actually gain access and see the Constitution and the Declaration. The Bible is not the work of man, but the Declaration and the Constitution are the two most important documents ever conceived by the mind of man.

I have had the privilege and opportunity to see the Grand Canyon and most of our national parks including our historic battlegrounds and our cemeteries. I shed my share of tears at The Wall. I have seen the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the changing of the guard. The one thing of America's history that I would most like to see is the Alamo. I have been there three times. I have never been able to go inside. Each time I have been overcome by the emotions that have welled up inside over their freely given sacrifice. They made this sacrifice with no reasonable assurance of success. A strong case could in fact be made that they should have run away so that such men could live to fight another day. If hope or the expectation of a delay of a few days of time would increase the chance that others would find a way to victory was the reason for their sacrifice, those men were knowledgable enough to know that they could have escaped and harrassed Santa Anna's forces in skirmishes that would have tied him up longer than the siege lasted. No, these men laid down their lives as a challenge that was designed to inspire other Texans that they dare not fail to successfully defend freedom.

I find your request unfathomable. If it were not for the instrumental role you played in the impeachment of Clinton with the yeoman's task of tabulating the Clinton Chronicles and if I did not believe that for some reason you are confused about the nature of this project, I would be inclined to find either your request or your chosen screen name very much in conflict regarding the nature of this undertaking.

[brityank]

It's quite humbling. I can assure you of that.

Just to ensure -- I suggest you through-out the last line on you FReeper page.           ;^)

Pledge Bump.

[TigersEye]

Thank you for those kind words. It is just nit picking but it wasn't the mayor who replied to me it was Habecker himself. The council member who made the stink. FWIW he was removed in the recall election by a large majority vote. Even without my letters. (The mayor did support him so he's a putz too.)

He has threatened to file a lawsuit against the recall committee and the town citing his "Constitutional rights being infringed." But he outed himself in another letter to the editor this summer. During the whole nasty episode, that he started and ended with his ouster, he claimed to be "agnostic." But he wrote a LthE bitterly complaining about the YMCA Conference Center getting a tax break (can't remember if it was state or county). He made some irrational statements about Estes renaming itself "God City" or "Jesus Town" (or something like that) and carping about how many churches there are here and how full their parking lots are on Sundays. It was very bizarre and very funny. So much for being an agnostic. What is even funnier is that the YMCA is about as secular as anything. They will literally host any religious get-together and lots of things having no religious connections at all.

Again, thanks for the compliment. Glad you liked my treatise.

[Eastbound]

You're welcome, TigersEye. A most worthy treatise.

(I'm a speed reader and have a 99 per cent comprehension rate and a 1 per cent name, date, and title recall rate. Half the time, just the reverse. And sometimes, everything just looks fuzzy. :))

[TigersEye]

I'm jealous. I think. ;^)

[HopefulPatriot]

Thank you Sir and I would like to have your permission to add your name to our ping list.

[HopefulPatriot]

"Does this conjure up visions of Karl Marx or little parading Nazi youths in your mind?.. Not sure about what you are implying here. Would you elaborate more?

Please see the firt part of the reply to Alamo-Girl. Hitler organized Nazi youths into the Hitler Youth Corps. Whether its history or mytholgy, they paraded and parroted goose-stepping storm troopers. Some reportedly served as informants to identify Jews and other "enemies of the state". Lenin and Mao formed similar youth organization. These are nothing more than propaganda and indoctrination methods for budding socialists, where people are trained to react based on emotions tied to patriotism in a warped sort of way (my country is my country, right or wrong). The idea is to short circuit the thought process. If people thought through what they were being asked to do, many would have resisted or even rejected it completely.

[TigersEye]

I read that reply.

No one would disparage allegiance to a country that is doing "right" and living within the Constitution.

This country has not lived entirely "within the Constitution" since the moment it was born. And, in spite of the best efforts of many, instances of injustice have, are and probably always will occur. You're either with us or against us.

A pledge of allegiance is not about knee-jerk patriotism it's about loyalty.

[writer33]

:)

[Eastbound]

"A pledge of allegiance is not about knee-jerk patriotism it's about loyalty."

Very true.

HP, our Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to uphold and submit to the rule of law. That's what our flag stands for -- jurisdiction, either civil or federal/military, depending on your current circumstance or commitments.

Our pledge of allegiance to the Republic is a pledge to uphold and defend the ideal of representative government -- upon which the strength of our Republic rests.

I see nothing negative or socialistic about partaking in the public affirmation of that pledge. It's comforting to know that there are more people in this country who participate in the Pledge than those who don't. May it ever be so.

[Reaganghost]

"And, in spite of the best efforts of many, instances of injustice have, are and probably always will occur. You're either with us or against us... HP, our Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to uphold and submit to the rule of law."

HP, Please allow me to address this issue.

No one is suggesting that we do not owe allegiance to our country against a common foreign or domestic foe. But I urge you to use caution when adopting the attitude that the government or its leaders always know best and that their judgment should always be trusted over your own individual judgment. Those who do not learn the lessons of history will repeat its mistakes. The history of the 20th century, theoretically the most advanced intellectual century, is that any individual on the planet is more likely to be killed by his own government than by any foreign or domestic enemy. Let's look at a few thoughts and excerpts from the great minds of the past:

• Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? WHy has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right...The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau http://www.afptn.org/civil.htm
• Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
• There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. -- Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
• The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
• For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. -- Albert Einstein
• Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny. -- Patrick Henry
• Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
• Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Frederic Bastiat, The Law
• The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. -- Thomas Jefferson
• Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws -- Martin Luther King Jr.
• The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure. -- Albert Einstein
• Declaration of Constitutional Principles From http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm
  The natural rights of persons are inalienable, preceding the social contract and the constitution, and persons may not be deprived of them even with their consent, since they do not have the power to surrender those rights, and therefore do not have the power to delegate the deprivation of those rights to others...An unconstitutional statute is not a law, no matter how vigorously it may be enforced. Enforcement does not make what is enforced the law. What is enforced is a regime. In a constitutional republic, the law and the regime should coincide. If they do not, the regime is not law but anti-law...Whenever any person is confronted with a situation in which two or more official acts are in conflict, he has the duty to know which is the superior one, and to obey or help enforce the superior one, which, if one of them is the constitution, means to obey or help enforce the constitution. This duty cannot be delegated to another person: not to a superior, a court, or a legal advisor. It is not a defense that one was ignorant of the law or just doing one's job or following orders. This is sometimes called the Principle of Nuremberg.

I think a very powerful case can be made for doing what we know to be right regardless of the rule of law or any allegiances that result from our location. There are clearly settings where any patriot would lay down the life in the defense of country. But the idea that you can only be a partriot with the notion of my country- right or wrong is a very dangerous precept. Substituting rituals for carefully reasoned thought makes the path to tyranny easier. Understanding the history and principles of what made this country great makes genuine patriots and pledges are relegated to the tools of tyranny.

As a side, but somewhat related issue are oaths. I served at the time of the draft. I took the oath that all military officers take. In contrast, my son served since the all voluntary military. He took the same oath but at a different point in time. Without going into too many details, there could have been settings during my time of service in which I would not have laid down my life in the defense of my country. It is important to understand the distinction; the oath I took was not strictly voluntary. It carried with it the not so veiled threat of having to leave the country, serve or spend some time in jail. I can't speak for my son, but I have no doubt in my mind that he would have lived or died as a result of the oath that he took. There is no greater evil than an unjust government. It literally preys on the loyalties and allegiances of its people to do them harm. Rituals are no substitute for rational thought, maybe ever. I am sure that great military minds will counter that duty and obedience are the bedrock of combat. I have never been in combat and cannot say from experience. What I know is that rational thought is what sets man apart from animals. What do we become when we cease to think?

[jeremiah]

Permission granted

[HopefulPatriot]

A friend sent me a quote suggesting that my view with regard to the heroes of the Alamo was far too idealistic. It also adds a perspective to Reaganghost's comments about combat.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." General George S. Patton

[TigersEye]

Reaganghost, you make a very eloquent case for conscience. For doing the right thing rather than the apparent righteous thing that blind loyalty might lead one to. You have backed it up with quite a number of persuasive quotes from a broad range of great minds. I couldn't agree more with the point you have made.

It seemed to me that HP's post about the PoA was suggesting that the PoA was not only a tool to create socialist mind-numbed robots, such as you warn against, but also a sign of that mindset in those who recite/support it. I think I am not the only one who took it that way. I have to fully agree with Eastbound's post about the meaning and intent of the PoA.

Since I agree that loyalty to a rogue government is wrong I must, logically, still have some trust in it when I pledge my allegiance to it. When that ceases to be the case it will be the government I reject not the PoA. I will simply cease to recite it. It may be a rather subjective personal opinion as to when that threshhold is crossed but finding fault with the author of the PoA isn't it. That's like saying that the DoI is crap because T. Jefferson had slaves.

IMO it is pointless to harp on traditions or institutions of culture or patriotism if one thinks that this country has passed the point of legitimacy. I see two choices in that case; leave the country or start your revolution. If it hasn't passed that point where else does one's allegiance lie?

[Eastbound]

There is a difference between our form of government and those we elect, appoint, and hire to manage it. Our Pledge of Allegiance is to the former, not to the latter.

Those who think that we who recite the pledge are swearing obedience to 'our country, right or wrong' have not been reading the memos.

I think we're all on the same side here. Let's not get dogmatic and lost in semantics. It's too damn close to Claire's time. Let's just stick with Plan A and replace the bahstids -- somehow, and the rest will fall into place.

[Reaganghost]

"Let's just stick with Plan A and replace the bahstids -- somehow, and the rest will fall into place."

We are back to keeping our eye on the ball and moving full speed ahead to make our pitch on how we believe we can elect people made from the same mold as Ronald Reagan and cut from the same cloth as the Founders. We believe this is the surest and quickest way to restore the Constitution. Restoring the Constitution is Plan A.