Posted on 12/12/2005 8:53:27 AM PST by HopefulPatriot
The 1912 Wilson election was a momentous prelude to the downfall of the United States. That election made possible not only the income tax, but also the Federal Reserve. Of the two, the Federal Reserve is by far the more ominous. Singlehandedly it made deficit spending and inflation the platforms on which socialism could be pyramided.
And in the vein of A Republic If You Can Keep It, the 17th Amendment was a major step in turning our republic into a democracy.
Not exactly a constitutional scholar are you?
It is unconstitutional for the United States to print legal tender.
I have no intention of printing anything, but people with sense (not cents) will gladly trade their dollars for my money when we begin to offer it. And there will be nothing unlawful, and certainly nothing unconstitutional about it.
"I don't think Freedom is something you can GIVE anyone. Its not a GIFT. Its a GOAL to be EARNED."
The Founders were unequivocal as to the source of freedom, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Whether you believe freedom is a gift from god or a natural right and inherently belongs to every individual human being as a birth right, it is indisputable as to where the inherent dangers to individual freedom lie; "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Founders were keenly aware of the dangers posed by every government. The Constitution of the United States was the second of our "crown" jewels. Not perfect, but it defined the best government ever conceived by the mind of man and set the stage that made it possible for Americans to make more progress in little more than a century than all of humanity in all of history up until that time.
FREEDOM matters.
Well, what you're doing right now is sounding like each and every politician who's ever said "trust me, I have a plan."
Thank you. We have added your name.
With regard to The Pledge, let me remind you and everybody else, the pledge is not a commitment to support our plan to restore the Constitution, The Pledge is about making a commitment to keep trying to find a plan to restore the Constitution until the Constitution has been restored.
Republic ~ Bump!
For the time being, this is the question that I would most like to address. Here is a quote from Ronald Reagan's Time for Choosing speech, "At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years?"
Here are a few thoughts on the "third rail of politics" from one of the members of our group.
Changing the hearts and minds of millions of Americans is an enormous undertaking. This is not about "we are more conservative than you are" or reciting platitudes to make us all feel better about ourselves. The United States is a very large ship of state with an enormous amount of momentum. Unfortunately, it is following a course similar to that of another famous ship. Given its present course and speed, and the constantly changing nature of the uncharted waters we have entered, my best guess is that the probability of a major collision with reality before 2020 is very high. I can tell you with absolute certainty, confirmed by the Comptroller of the Currency, that there are not enough lifeboats for the 78 million baby-boomers let alone the hundreds of millions of other passengers. Convincing the boomers and millions of other Americans will be a Herculean task requiring what we have termed, the Great Debate.
As you will see, the real beauty of our plan is that the task of convincing the tens of millions of Americans needed to bring about the course change will fall into the capable hands of a man that already has their collective ear. Stay tuned; you will see that our claim that this is the best plan ever devised to restore the Constitution is based on a solid foundation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Your comment reflects one of the difficulties of communication. We put some words on a page and you formed an inaccurate impression. Our words have been that we are going to present a plan to you, give you the opportunity to revise it, and if it still doesn't meet your expectations; tell us what your plan is. In short and freely translated, "We report; you decide!"
These are the bullets that are heading straight for the heart of the United States. The Medicare bullet is much larger and will not reach the skin surface until 2012. It won't reach the heart until sometime after 2016. Fortunately, this bullet is easily deflected by simply abolishing a program in which nobody has their life savings invested. And in spite of the rhetoric and hype, the evidence does not support the concept that Medicare saves lives. Somewhere in the vicinity of 1986 HCFA published a report that summarized the first 20 years of Medicare results. It has since been buried to the point of being very difficult to retrieve, but what the data showed is that on average, 80% of all Medicare benefits were paid in the last 90 days of each beneficiaries life. Medicare was not "paying for health care", Medicare was paying the costs of allowing beneficiaries to die in hospitals.
Social Security is in a different ball park. Millions of Americans have been forced to "invest" in a pyramid scheme designed to resemble an annuity, but where incoming cash is paid out to current beneficiaries instead of being saved and compounded like a real annuity. When today's payers retire, there is no pool of savings and compounded interest available to withdraw as their benefits. If they receive benefits at all, it will have to come from people willing to continue paying into a program that makes no intellectual or economic sense.
Social Security must be ended, but it cannot be fairly abolished with the stroke of a pen in the same fashion as Medicare. While SS is and was unconstitutional and was involuntary, it still carries a moral and implied contract between generations of Americans that can and should be honored in a fair and reasonable format modeled after the Cato Plan to Privatize Social Security.
It is my opinion, that because of the millions of minds that actually believe they have a right to have their health care paid by somebody else regardless of the costs involved, and regardless of the fact that whatever they have paid in taxes/premiums is insignificant when compared to the benefits that they have been promised in law, that it will be easier to deal with Medicare and more practical, only after proving that Social Security can be ended voluntarily and equitably.
It is reasonable to believe that the Republic of the United States is going to rise or fall dependent on how we deal with these two issues. If socialism survives, the US won't. It is not necessary to take my word for this; here are the opinions of reliable experts.
"Republican politicians have failed to learn the lesson of Ronald Reagan's two landslide electoral victories; conservatives will turn out and vote in overwhelming numbers for a genuinely conservative candidate."
Look at his opposition (Carter), not to mention the state of the economy. Plus, and maybe most to the point, the pubs were the party out of power at the time. In those cases they always act conservative. As for Reagan's actual performance, I thought it was great! But I'm afraid he may have been basically a lucky accident in terms of republican politics.
"..the lesson of the 1994 Republican Revolution; conservatives will turn out and vote in overwhelming numbers for a genuinely conservative agenda."
True. But again, consider both the political climate and the republican political position at the time. And look how quickly Newt got pilloried.
Most of all... Look at the continuing overall trend in terms of size of gvt over all those years. In my view, guys like Reagan and Newt are great where you can get 'em. But the best you can hope for ever from them is just a slowing in the rate of growth of gvt.
Fast or slow... were's still getting there (to socialism).
Is that a terrible mistake? Of course it is. I just hope I'm dead by then.
Yeah, whatever.
One of the biggest mistakes wannabe communicators make is blaming their audience for failing to grasp their message. If someone's not picking up what you're putting down, it's your fault, not your audience's fault.
A more "radical" approach--gasp!---would've been "here's our plan, check it out and decide for yourself." All you're doing right now is retail politics---shilling for vaporware. You are radically behaving like every wannabe politician who ever shook a hand or kissed a baby.
Nice. Thanks!
Your skepticism is understandable. You don't agree completely with your business associates, your wife or your children. Neither does anybody else. However, do you have any doubt that Ronald Reagan ran on very conservative political agendas in all of his electoral races, including his two races in California? They are called "leaders" because they are able to bring people, even people who normally disagree, along with them to the leader's side of the debate.
By the same token, no political party ever put forth a clearer conservative agenda than the Contract with America. There has never been a more dramatic shift in the balance of power. It is absolutely crucial that people understand why Republicans have not had another Contract with America. This will be the focus of our next article.
Kay was the pirates wife. She got to live in the valley year round ;-)
Reaganghost has actually been defending me. Your complaints are mostly directed at me. I didn't and don't blame you for not grasping the message. And it is equally absurd to blame me for the failure to communicate. It is much harder than people realize to communicate, even in writing. If you have doubt about this, read some supreme court opinions regarding the possible interpretations of the plain language of the Constitution. It is very much a part of why this discussion is necessary.
"A more "radical" approach--gasp!---would've been "here's our plan, check it out and decide for yourself."
Here are my exact words:
Rest assured, we are not trying to offend anybody. We would like to persuade everybody to get onboard and agree with us, even Democrats. One part of our plan is designed to move Democrats to the right. At first this will be simply a forced recoil on their part. But as the debate continues, we expect our arguments to be crafted on a continuously improving basis that will gradually bring more and more Democrats to our side of the debate.
When something has never been successfully done before, it takes some time, repeated effort, and even a failure or two, to find what works. We intend to keep at this until we have discovered what works. And we are inviting every Freeper to come along for the ride.
Who will join with us and take The Pledge
I got here because of a ping...a ping that I wasn't interested in getting. so don't count me in with those interested in your delusions.
You'd have better luck inventing a time machine, so that you can go back to a time and place where you imagine that you'd find things to your liking, than implementing this cockeyed plan, which you have about as much chance of realizing, than you have in becoming the KING OF THE UNIVERSE.
And before the name calling begins, no, I'm not a damned Dem, I'm not a RINO, I am a Conservative, but I'm not delusional.
What I've been saying, and what you guys are failing to understand, is that right now your plan is nothing but hot air. You're selling hot air. Vaporware. Why in the world should we out here listen to you at all? As of right now, you're like everyone else who has a plan to sell.
It is much harder than people realize to communicate, even in writing. If you have doubt about this, read some supreme court opinions regarding the possible interpretations of the plain language of the Constitution.
Thanks. I studied con law as an undergraduate, and I assure you I've read several.
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.