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!
                        

 

 

[ForGod'sSake]

How much fun are you having; a little, a lot, none at all?

Well, it's more fun when there's a capable opponent. So, the answer is, I've had better.

You'd fall for anything wrapped in enough hyperbole, it seems. How nice for you.

Once again you attempt to deflect the obvious. Are you a coward?

[nopardons]

You're just so you adorable.... :-)

[ForGod'sSake]

That's Mr. Adorable to you. Here's an oldie I'd like you to chew on:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. - Samuel Adams

Just where in this tapestry do you see yourself? Or are you even a part of it? What is it worth to you personally to defend our Constitution? I gather from your lack of response to an earlier question you have no descendants worthy of leaving an intact republic to. Selfish and self centered are not traits of patriots. What does that make you?

[nopardons]

What a sweetie!

[manwiththehands]

The Senate is against the original constitution. It's a fly in the ointment ... a monkey in the wrench ...

What might have been a good idea at one time (like unions) it's nothing more now than a beneath corrupt parliamentary body that serves only itself and it's own interests. It interferes with any agenda a unified President and House of Representative's might otherwise forward.

It's just another bureaucracy in an already bloated government.

And it has only given us partisan hacks like Hillary Clinton, Dick "Turban" Durbin, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

I have more trust in and respect for the UN.

[ForGod'sSake]

Uh huh. So, you haven't presented a single piece of evidence to support your flames. You haven't been able to produce a single rational argument against this effort to defend our Constitution. You have shown the people willing to pledge their support to defend our Constitution that you will be kept by your betters. That should make you proud, eh?

Anyway, my opponent has thrown in the towel it seems without so much as a bon voyage. The least you could do is acknowledge defeat.

"...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samual Adams

I say again, coward.

[nopardons]

How precious!

[ForGod'sSake]

You know what the irony is sweetums? You are contributing mightily to keeping this thread at the top. You're not completely useless.

I really can't stick around much longer, so would you mind just coming by and dropping a smooch bump on me now and then?

[LowCountryJoe]

It's too late!

Look at how friggen small that scroll-bar thingy gets. Read through this list, it's comical in some places...well, it's only funny once you've given up and surrendered to Leviathan. Sorry, pal, my pledge: it goes to the omnipotent porkmakers lawmakers.

[writer33]

Trying to bait me into a flame war isn't going to work.

Yes, but FGS likes baiting you into flame wars. You're the perfect target. :) HA!

[dcwusmc]

VERY NICE work bump and PINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

[nopardons]

No, I'm not...it didn't work, so he still looks the fool he is.

And for the record, in public, I asked you to take me off all of your ping list, because you pinged me to this demented thread.

[writer33]

And for the record, in public, I asked you to take me off all of your ping list, because you pinged me to this demented thread.

Yes, but that's because I like you so much, and in public, you are removed from all my ping lists. But that's because I don't like you anymore. :)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Exactly...these post are long on platitudes and high sounding prose, but very short on details and the actual "plan".

Precisely, my friend.

"Trust me . . . I'm not like the others."

[ForGod'sSake]

No, I'm not[the perfect target]...it didn't work, so he still looks the fool he is.

Talking behind my back; tsk,tsk. I gotta share something with you n00b, if it weren't for low class, you wouldn't have any. FWIW, I suppose your flamethrower running out of gas was coincidental. Your arguments are baseless and built on shifting sand and you know it, so you resort to the only thing you've got left to work with; your Dim roots. Well, here's a news flash for you, sayin' it don't make it so. You should know that, but you persist in trying it nonetheless.

If you have the tiniest scintilla of evidence against these guys and their plan you should present it here don't you think? Throwing up a bunch of dust hasn't worked; I mean, after all, your flamethrower has given up the ghost so you should maybe try a more reasoned approach. If you can. Which I doubt. Which only leads me to one conclusion. You're too chicken to admit you're afraid to take the pledge.

I'll have to check in on you later n00b, so run along and play; the adults have work to do..

[ForGod'sSake]

"Trust me . . . I'm not like the others."

One parting shot before I've got to go. What is it exactly these guys are asking you to do? Do you even know? Are you willing to do anything to defend our Constitution? ANYTHING? At this point they're asking you to commit to defending the Constitution; nothing more. You got a a problem with that??? Or have you and n00b been attending the same seance and the fog hasn't cleared yet?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

What is it exactly these guys are asking you to do? Do you even know?

Sign some silly pledge because we should trust them.

Are you willing to do anything to defend our Constitution? ANYTHING?

How about lose my life---is that good enough for you? I'm a US Naval Academy graduate and former Naval officer.

At this point they're asking you to commit to defending the Constitution; nothing more. You got a a problem with that??? Or have you and n00b been attending the same seance and the fog hasn't cleared yet?

Spare us all the petty drama.

[Reaganghost]

"..the media is the de facto enemy of conservatives and will stop at nothing to lay bare any indescretions.."

This is not the only deterrent that discourages people of the caliber of Ronald Reagan and the Founders from seeking public office. Most people do not like, and are self-conscious if not embarrassed about asking for money. Multiple term politicians have not only been conditioned, but also trained in techniques of when, and how to ask, as well as how to ask in way designed to increase the amount of the contribution as well as set the stage for the next round of fund-raising. Fund-raising has become a business and in some cases, a profession. It seems logical to me that the better the character of the candidate, the more they would dislike campaign fund-raising. Another thing, people who contribute money for anything, commonly expect to get something in return. Conditioned to promise anything, do politicians ever say "NO"? Polling data indicates that the public does not trust politicians.

As bad as this picture of campaign fund-raising is, the reality facing candidates that have never been elected is even worse. Incumbents use their power over the public purse to buy votes from their constituents. Pork is the tip of the iceberg compared to socialistic programs. Most pork is simply payback for campaign contributions. It is socialism that buys the votes. Is it really a mystery why the incumbent is a twenty to one favorite over the challenger? Once the election is over, fund-raising begins immediately for the next election. For the politician, fund-raising never ends. For a would-be statesman, he is faced with the prospect that most of his time in office will be spent raising money for reelection. People of character are motivated to seek public office to enact a specific agenda. Time spent either thinking about fund-raising or engaging in fund-raising is time that cannot be devoted to enacting the agenda. If your time in office is going to be spent raising money for your own campaign, instead of accomplishing your legislative agenda, and you are going to be demonized for your efforts, why bother?

How many times have you heard conservatives complain that there aren't any statesmen any more? Was Ronald Reagan unique? Why are conservatives completely surprised when republicans like Nixon, Newt, or even Delay disappoint them or fail to live up to conservative expectations? If the system favors the election of fund-raisers, is it reasonable to expect that it is the most successful fund-raisers that are going to be elected and you are going to get everything that goes with them regardless of their party affiliation? "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I've come to realize there is a very close resemblance to the first," Ronald Reagan.

It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite. As you will see, this is perhaps the pivotal part of our plan for electing statesmen exactly like Ronald Reagan and the Founders who will restore the Constitution.

[ForGod'sSake]

Sign some silly pledge because we should trust them.

A pledge to defend our Constitution is silly? Regardless of who asks, should the answer not be the same?

How about lose my life---is that good enough for you?

So the sticking points are your fortune and/or you sacred honor(if available)? I don't get it.

I'm a US Naval Academy graduate and former Naval officer.

Then you've taken a pledge similar to this one at least once before:

Officer Oath: I,_________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

So, when were you let off the hook?

Just as an aside, F'n was also a naval officer.

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

You paint a depressing picture of our political system. RR's assessment was probably more accurate than most of us want to accept. Campaigns; the "neverending" story.

It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite.

Yeah, seems like term limits aren't necessarily the answer, AND would be a mixed blessing in any case. The unintended consequences could be interesting too. Husband/wife tag teams, etc. "Front" men for the "real" candidate would probably be the order of the day. So, I'll wait to see what the plan is and in the meantime, will hope and pray for a workable solution.

FGS