Unfree Republic

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/24/01 | Jeff Elkins

[Thumper1960]

Ya know....we really don't need a "Homeland Defense" department/agency/directorate/ad nauseum. We have our Second Amendment.

Let's use it!

[ClancyJ]

Apparently you have not been reading the threads and seen all the comments. They would like nothing better than to post anything they want - to heck with the safety of our soldiers because you see, they have the right to free speech even while others are out there fighting for that right for them.

You may not be seeing them because Jim is pulling them as soon as they are posted and many have hit the abuse key and reported them. There are a lot that would love to play war here and compare rumors - of course we all would. It is just not worth the price to do it. All of us have to help in this battle however we can. Surely you don't think I find it fun to mention such things. I've been highly disappointed in what I've seen from our posters before Jim ruled on what could be discussed. I would have thought no one would even have to mention such a thing on this site.

[A Navy Vet]

As often as I have been critical of certain FR policies and "inner circle" persons, I've never lost sight of the fact that this is a private property bulletin board and the owner can do as he wish. If the owner doesn't want certain things discussed or viewed that is entirely his RIGHT. Get over it.

For the Lew Rockwell type critics: The other underlying fact is that FR is open to the general public with all the views and opinions that entails...good and bad, right or wrong. You folks should try reading the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

[doug from upland]

Who did Lew Rockwell used to be?

[Ada Coddington]

Who did Lew Rockwell used to be?

????

[Goldi-Lox]

Nada. I posted a very interesting article, that was not pro-peace, and it was IMMEDIATELY yanked!!

[Goldi-Lox]

Based on your argument, the site name should be changed to RobinsonsRepublic instead of FreeRepublic. The current name is misleading.

[Goldi-Lox]

"or do each of us go and buy our own F-16s and fight?"

THAT WAS the founders intent. There was a prohibition against any "standing army". Read the Constitution before you start spouting nonsense from it.

[Goldi-Lox]

"Excuse me, but the stated purpose of this forum is to roll back government - did I mistakenly wander onto a liberal website?"

Abundy, I think that this should be restated as: "the stated purpose of this forum is to roll back any Clinton-government - and roll forward everything Bush-government wants"

It's a pro-more-government website now. Ya gotta keep up!

[rdb3]

Well, while you're getting your foot out of your mouth, let me explain something to you. I know the Constitution very well. I have even read all of the Federalist Papers, so I know enough to say that I know what I'm talking about.

The President is, by the Constitution, the Commander in Chief. But you say that we were not supposed to have a standing army (or military for that matter). Then, how could he be Commander in Chief of a non-existent military? He is the Commander in peacetime, too, you know?

But to be short, because we have much larger fish to fry at this moment, do not make assumptions about me or anyone else that you cannot back up with proof. The Constitution provides for the common defense, and that's what's happening.

End of story.

[DB]

There is difference between rolling back America and rolling back government.

One of the few constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government is national defense. America is under attack. It is the duty and obligation of the federal government to prosecute this war to win and ultimately protect us from these foreign attacks.

Do you go to your friends houses and spout your mouth off and expect to be welcome? If you don't like this place, you're free to go.

[DB]

I'm sure the Navy ships of the day were privatly owned...

[rdb3]

I take it you mean to ships used during the Revolutionary War. And if so, you are correct, they were privately owned.

But I have two questions for you. If these are the ships you mean, was there a United States of America fully functioning at the time, and, did we have a Constitution?

[DB]

Sorry...

I was being sarcastic...

I don't think the founders intended us to buy F-16 individually to protect our selves... A national defense is one of the few constitutional functions of the federal government.

[rdb3]

Exactly. No need to apologize. That was my point all along.

[Goldi-Lox]

The President is, by the Constitution, the Commander in Chief. But you say that we were not supposed to have a standing army (or military for that matter). Then, how could he be Commander in Chief of a non-existent military? He is the Commander in peacetime, too, you know?

By calling up the citizen militia (all adult men who own a weapon) the President is the commander of those armed forces. Question answered. Constitutionally.

[rdb3]

Wrong answer, constitutionally. He is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, period. But during the Revolutionary War, there was no Constituional provision, now, was there? Hell, there wasn't even a President.

[2Trievers]

FYI, BD

[Un-PC]

Thanks, Ada. Excellent post.

Mr. Elkins, of course, is right on target. As a long-time poster on FreeRepublic, I'm shocked by the pro-totalitarian sentiments being expressed on this forum. Bush's new Department of Homeland Security should scare the hell out of all of us. If Clinton had proposed the same monstrosity, he'd be catching hell right now.

It's time to forget about party labels and party politics. All of us need to stand tall and oppose the new phone-tapping and Internet-surveillance schemes being hatched by this administration. Our true enemies lie within our borders. Osama bin Laden and his minions need to be dealt with, but in the long run they are not the most dangerous threat to our freedom. The Orwellian police-state measures now being proposed by this administration are far more dangerous to our liberties.

We cannot let this administration use its self-proclaimed "war on terrorism" as an excuse to declare war on our constitution. It is our solemn duty as freedom-loving Americans to do everything within our power to oppose the creation of a soviet-style police apparatus -- regardless of which political party is in power.