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]

"Something they couldn't do before the imposition of the income tax.

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.

[Durus]

Maybe I'm missing something but it would appears that you are saying things are bad, are likely to get worse, and it's going to take a lot of work to fix it. I doubt many would disagree with those points even Socialists yet we have very different perspectives on how to fix things.

Even among people on FreeRepublic there are strenuous debates on what the constitution means and I fear some don't really want restoration of the constitution as much as they want their particular views upheld. For there to be any popular movement to restore the constitution there has to be some honest discussion about what the constitution really means and for that matter why it's so vitally important.

I've seen some brilliant ideas on how to solve specific problems but without a basic understanding of what the constitutional method actually is, as opposed to what it has morphed into, those ideas are basically useless.

Socialists have many weapons in their arsenal to fight (real) constitutionalists. When a Socialist stands up and says to the American people "Do you really want to get rid of social security?" what do you think the response is going to be? When a socialist stands up and says "Do you really want the FDA abolished?" what do you think the response will be? When a socialist stands up and says "Do you really want guns to be unrestricted in any meaningful way?" what do you think the response will be? They have already conditioned people to think that socialism is the answer to problems that socialism has created.

So if you could outline your plan basically..cuz honestly even if you find a bunch of people willing to stand beside you I'm not sure how many of them will actually be your allies when it comes time to re-implement the constitution.

[HopefulPatriot]

"It's ILLEGAL for private citizens and that includes companies ) to print what they claim is legal tender.

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.

[HopefulPatriot]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

"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.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

We admit that we aren't salesmen, but we do believe that to change 90 years of history in less than a decade and pursuade hundreds of millions of people to end socialism before socialism ends the United States is going to take more than a slogan or a sound byte.

Well, what you're doing right now is sounding like each and every politician who's ever said "trust me, I have a plan."

[HopefulPatriot]

The frailties of age, the name "Kay Ludlow" was familiar to me but I couldn't place it. A quick google suggests that it is from Atlas Shrugged, very high on my favorite reading list. Still unable to place the character in the book, I guess it is time for me to reread it. Thanks for the 'bump'.

[HopefulPatriot]

"If there is a ping list, put me on it..Give me time to follow this before I take the "pledge"

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.

[blackie]

Republic ~ Bump!

[HopefulPatriot]

Great reply. And you raise many relevant and very real questions. "Socialists have many weapons in their arsenal to fight (real) constitutionalists. When a Socialist stands up and says to the American people "Do you really want to get rid of social security?"

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.

[Durus]

You still have not said enough to gain my support. You would not be the first group to claim the mantle of "Constitutionalists" without a real understanding of what that means. I say that of course not as an accusation, as I haven't been given enough information to decide either way, but as a concern. Like the "constitution party" it take more then a word in your name to make it true. I'll give you and your friends the benefit of the doubt for the moment while keeping an eye out for more information.

[Reaganghost]

"what you're doing right now is sounding like each and every politician who's ever said "trust me, I have a plan."

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!"

[HopefulPatriot]

This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. ~~ Jim Robinson, March 1999

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.

[Pessimist]

"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.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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!"

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.

[lilylangtree]

Nice. Thanks!

[HopefulPatriot]

"..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."

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 Ludlow]

Kay was the pirates wife. She got to live in the valley year round ;-)

[HopefulPatriot]

"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."

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:

• "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."
• "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."

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

[nopardons]

Your hallucinations are engendering an astounding lack of interest here and posts from the usual KOOKS.

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.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

"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."

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.