A Republic If You Can Keep It

vanity ^ | 12/12/2005 | Hopeful Patriot

[HopefulPatriot]

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Breathes there the man with soul so dead, 

Who never to himself hath said,

'This is my own, my native land!'

    The ink wasn't dry on the Constitution before one of the Founders who gave it birth expressed his doubts about the ability of Americans to preserve the Constitution that defined the United States. Three Franklin quotes provide the insight needed to understand his cynicism:

• "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
• "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
• "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

    There are no Democrats who understand and are committed to honoring the provisions of the Constitution. The heart and soul of the Democratic Party is socialism. Socialism and democracy are unequivocally and irrevocably incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. Almost by definition, Democrats are at war with the Constitution. Here is what James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" had to say about socialism and democracy:  

• "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
• "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

    John Edwards is correct; there are two Americas. The America that is seen by Democrats is an unconstitutional socialistic Utopian democracy. The America seen by Republicans is much harder to define. It is certainly run by a "little intellectual elite in a far distant capital" which barely qualifies it as a 'republic'. Far too many Republicans have become willing to accept or tolerate the premise that socialism is inevitably and inescapably now a permanent part of the American landscape. It also seems that there are increasing numbers of poorly informed or misguided Republican politicians who are embracing socialism for the same reason that Democrats brought socialism to America, to get elected and to stay elected. Socialism is unconstitutional and it is a mistake for Republican politicians to ever believe that conservatives will cheerfully support Republicans that condone socialism. Such a belief contains the seeds for disappointing, if not bitter losses in future elections. Republican politicians have failed to learn the lesson of Ronald Reagan's two landslide victories; conservatives will turn out and vote in over-whelming numbers for a genuinely conservative candidate. And it appears that congressional Republicans have deliberately chosen to ignore the lesson of the 1994 Republican Revolution; conservatives will turn out and vote in over-whelming numbers for a genuinely conservative agenda. Socialisticly leaning Republicans have more than earned the pejorative description of being a "RINO" as an acronym for Republican In Name Only. Regardless of party affiliation, in the absence of term limits, politicians seeking life-long careers in office, use the treasury to buy their constituents' votes for perpetual re-election. Socialism was created by, and is perpetuated by politicians. Socialism becomes their holy grail for re-election. Socialistic politicians effectively convert any republic into a democracy by surrogates.

    In truth, there is a third America. This America is only a memory, or more correctly stated, a mirage that is pictured only in the minds of conservatives. This mirage is an illusion because it no longer exists in the real world. It is the United States that was defined by the Constitution. Conservatives haven't yet been able to consciously admit to themselves or to even consider the possibility that they no longer live in an America that is the USA, but rather a country that is actually the USINO.

    It is a mistake in terminology and a mistake in logical thinking to allow the media or our educational institutions to be portrayed as representing or reflecting the mainstream. Mainstream Americans are conservative and still believe in freedom. The history of the past century is that the media has been nothing more than a propaganda organ for socialism and the Democratic Party. While Democrats and RINO's are the problem, it will be difficult to convince most conservatives of how grave the problem actually is until conservatives begin to recognize and begin to admit to themselves that they no longer live in the USA. The potential to correctly assess and address the problem will only be possible after conservatives begin to consider the possibility that they are actually living in the US In Name Only. There are three reasons why most conservatives have not recognized or noticed the transition from USA to USINO. First the transition was done in incremental steps, at a glacial pace over the course of a century. Secondly, the media has been incredibly successful in using propaganda to conceal the truth. And thirdly, our educational institutions became major players in the propaganda/brain-washing efforts that have successfully camouflaged the changes that have been continuously occurring, but ever so gradually. In lieu of thinking or questioning, Americans educated after 1950 have been conditioned to accept, rather than challenge, information provided by authority figures. This has been especially true when the information has been provided by the government.

Good News and Bad News

    It may not seem like it, but this article has actually been written to share good news with you. The bad news is that Franklin was right; we didn't keep it. The good news is that we can take it back if we respond correctly and with reasonable promptness. A small group of Freepers has devised the best plan ever put forward to restore the Constitution. You do not have to take my word for the quality of the plan. If you really are a Constitutional conservative, you are quite capable of deciding the relative merits of the plan for yourself. Even before you begin to plunge into the details of the plan in eager anticipation of disproving my claim that our plan is the best ever proposed, there are a few things that should be self-evident and some that should be considered:

• Recognition of the need to restore the Constitution means that in the last eighty years no one, and that includes Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, has put forth a plan that has already worked. 
• The fact that the resolution of the problem is not already in sight, means that on balance, it is debatable whether we have even made any praiseworthy progress in spite of Ronald Reagan's leadership or his undisputed immense contribution.
• Ditto with regard to the 1994 Republican Revolution resulting from Newt's Contract with America. At best, these may have only slowed the pace of our descent into socialism.
• Measured in terms of either the growth of government intrusion into our lives or the growth of government spending, it is clear that we have lost ground. 
• If you have read the Gokhale-Smetters report and found it credible, you should recognize the possibility that the country could be poised for catastrophe.
• The lessons of history are unambiguous. All democracies end in bankruptcy or hyperinflation whenever the public learns to vote itself benefits. Remember the warnings of Madison and Reagan.

FreeRepublic's Mission 

    In March of 1999, Jim Robinson clearly stated FreeRepublic's mission. Five years later in March of 2004, Jim Robinson had this to say, "We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc...We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life."

    In one of our very first articles, we issued this challenge to every Freeper. Dismayed does not begin to describe our assessment of the response to either our challenge or the response to the series itself. Here is a quick look at the results:

• Our first article, Free Republic And Freedom, has been viewed 1,616 times.
• Our second article, Free Republic's Roots, has been viewed 1,655 times;
• The third, Another Ronald Reagan, has only been viewed 747 times.
• The most recent, Where's the Instant Replay? has been viewed a paltry 544 times.

The trend is clearly headed in the wrong direction. With that thought in mind, we have a few comments and some questions:

• FreeRepublic.com ~ Conservative News Discussion Forum, from Webster's: forum-an assembly for the discussion of questions of public interest.
• The topic we (a presently small but hopefully soon to grow number of Freepers) are proposing for discussion is restoring the Constitution.
• 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.
• Within that topic, our small group of Freepers has a specific plan to restore the Constitution that we would like to present for discussion and improvement.
• Our small group has challenged the members of the forum to evaluate the plan we are presenting and to offer their thoughts on how to improve this plan.
• We have proposed that at the conclusion of our presentation, that those Freepers who think this plan, with or without improvement, is unlikely to achieve the goal of completing FreeRepublic's stated mission, should present the members of the forum a plan of their own making for discussion.
• We believe that FreeRepublic's mission is important enough to warrant a section of its own on the News/Activism sidebar where articles or relevant posts could be linked and available to all Freepers for extended periods of time. We have asked for this addition to the sidebar twice. Both requests were politely refused.
• In that same March 2004 article quoted above, Jim Robinson was discussing the War on Terror and had this to say, "Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy.."

Here are our questions:

1. Is the over-arching goal of conservatives the restoration of the United States Constitution?
2. If the best defense is a strong offense, isn't it time for FreeRepublic to go on offense in an effort to restore the Constitution?
3. If the answer to both questions is yes, should accomplishing FreeRepublic's mission be a continuing discussion for the forum until such time as the mission has been accomplished?
4. Would having a News/Activism Sidebar section entitled "Mission" or something to that effect, where relevant articles and replies could be linked for extended periods facilitate the discussion and presumably facilitate the accomplishment of the mission?
5. Would it facilitate the discussion of the mission and therefore presumably facilitate the accomplishment of the mission to have this discussion moderated and possibly archived and/or excerpted to separate the wheat from the chaff?
6. If there are enough "yes" answers to all of the above questions, I would like to ask the members of the forum if they would be willing to ask the Founder of our Forum, Jim Robinson, would he be willing to act as The Moderator for the FreeRepublic Mission Discussion?
7. Is there anyone who believes the goal is politically unattainable?
8. If the goal is not attained, have you considered the alternatives and the consequences?
9. What does this Freeper want for Christmas? How about the initiation of a serious effort to restore the Constitution?

    This Christmas, our small group of Freepers would like to give every Freeper the opportunity to give their children and their other family members the gift of a lifetime. You can give them FREEDOM, the same freedom that was the birth right of every American from 1789 until 1912, the same freedom for which countless Americans have bled and lain down their lives. Is it too much to ask, Will you take The Pledge?

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!
                        

 

 

[HopefulPatriot]

Thanks for the ping FGS.

We have sent Jeff Head a freepmail that links to a draft of the summary article for this series. There are still several articles coming in the series before the summary will be published. We plan to resume publishing the remaining articles of the series next week.

It is our hope that in the interval that Jim Robinson will decide whether he is willing to committ to leading a genuine effort to find and then implement a plan that can restore Constitution. It is certainly possible that Jim Robinson has his hands full simply keeping FreeRepublic alive and lacks the time and other resources that would be needed to lead such an effort.

We have noted that Jeff Head has returned to the forum with the post of an excellent article regarding China's aggressive militaristic buildup. We are looking foreward to hearing Mr. Head's thoughts on how our two presently separate efforts might be coordinated or even integrated.

And as always, we invite each and every Freeper to consider taking The Pledge.

[ForGod'sSake]

Looking forward to seeing "The Rest of the Story".

[HopefulPatriot]

"Looking forward to seeing "The Rest of the Story".

Let's hope you have lots of company.

[ForGod'sSake]

The Amazing Insight of Ben Franklin

[TAdams8591]

"In truth, there is a third America. This America is only a memory, or more correctly stated, a mirage that is pictured only in the minds of conservatives. This mirage is an illusion because it no longer exists in the real world. It is the United States that was defined by the Constitution. Conservatives haven't yet been able to consciously admit to themselves or to even consider the possibility that they no longer live in an America that is the USA, but rather a country that is actually the USINO."

Not this conservative. I discuss it all the time. Actually, a point John Edwards made when he was running for office, is more accurate I believe, but not for the reasons he gave. There are TWO America's. One that believes in the America founded by the forefathers and based upon the original constitution, and another created by the left.

Amazingly, it's mostly people from the first group, who now fight in Iraq, defending the America of the second group.

[HopefulPatriot]

Welcome to our series; my apologies if I have missed your name before. In scanning your recent posts, I am impressed by your energy and would like to add your name to our ping list and invite you to follow the rest of the articles as they are published. Consider this my personal invitation to please consider taking The Pledge.

As for the question you raise, I would take the position that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence define America, and in turn the character of "Americans". Democrats and the people on the left are Constitutionally perverted and therefor by definition, unamerican. We will address a mechanism of how this division can be resolved peacefully in the Great Debate.

I would also suggest that you may have missed the point that I was actually trying to make. After seventy years of Democratic rule, the laws of our country have changed to the point that the United States as defined by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence no longer exists. We live in perverted socialistic shell of our former self, that is approaching the brink that is the fate of all democracies that become socialistic enclaves, bankruptcy or hyperinflation that destroys the wealth of the country and its people. This has been the fate of democracies for three thousand years; the United States will not be the exception.

[TAdams8591]

"I would also suggest that you may have missed the point that I was actually trying to make. After seventy years of Democratic rule, the laws of our country have changed to the point that the United States as defined by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence no longer exists."

Thank you. It would be a pleasure to be included.

No. I understand your point and agree and have discussed it many, many times. Perhaps, I didn't make it clear in my post. The left who has been in control of the major institutions in the U.S. have made your point a reality.

I don't know that you understand my point. Most of the men who fight in Iraq, come from the group who still believes in the America founded by the forefathers (which no longer exists), and are defending the new America revolutionized by the left.

[HopefulPatriot]

"I don't know that you understand my point. Most of the men who fight in Iraq, come from the group who still believes in the America founded by the forefathers (which no longer exists), and are defending the new America revolutionized by the left."

You are correct; I am not sure that I understand your comment about which America the men fighting in Iraq are defending.

Here is what I know:
My son, who has added considerable thought and editing to the material that forms the foundation of this series over the better part of the past decade and of whom I am very proud, is part of the US embassy guard in Baghdad. He and many of his comrades in arms are fighting for the America where freedom was born and protected by a Constitution. And as long as there is a chance to win the fight for freedom with ballots, he is on the same side that I am. If our side doesn't prevail with ballots and while it's true that I can't actualy speak for my son, I am certain that my son and many of the men with whom he works, are willing to defend freedom with bullets against any or all would-be tyrannts, even a tyranny of the majority if it came to that.

[TAdams8591]

"You are correct; I am not sure that I understand your comment about which America the men fighting in Iraq are defending."

Since the "old" America, as you say no longer exists, they are defending the "new" America.

[HopefulPatriot]

I don't believe in compromising principles. That said, it does not mean that compromises cannot structured between parties that have apparent disagreements even if the disagreements may only be technical. Try this:

• If you asked the troops on the ground in Iraq, are they defending their country right or wrong? I think the answer would be no.
• If you asked them would they be willing to lay down their lives defending a socialistic democratic utopia, I think many would look at you like you have lost your mind.
• And if you asked them would they defend the Freedoms given to us by the Founders, I think their answer would be that there is no risk that they would not accept and no pain that they would not endure in order to continue the fight for freedom.

[TAdams8591]

I agree with your above post.

You are the one that made the point that the America founded by our forefather's no longer exists. I agree with you. It is a far different America.

I think the soldiers in most cases believe they are defending, the America founded by our forefather's, when in fact they aren't. However, the fact that this is a far different America (and I never used the term socialist utopia) doesn't mean I believe it shouldn't be defended. I was making an observation only.

[HopefulPatriot]

Sounds good to me. I look forward to hearing your comments on future articles in the series.

[listenhillary]

Old old thread bump