The Problem

Me

[A.J.Armitage]

Jim Robinson posted Is Free Republic a Fraud? Is it time for Free Republic to go away? this was my reply, which wasn't really "on topic", given what he said in his article, but I think the problem I discuss is worth talking about. Maybe it's just growing pains with all the new people coming in, but even then, I think we ought to talk about it.

In an important sense, Free Republic already has gone away. Too many people here, especially the newbies but also some of the ones from way back, use Free Republic for shouting their love and support of what every violation of freedom anyone can think up. Secret military tribunals, not just for bin Laden but also for people in the United States? You're a traitor if you disagree. The Patriot Act? You're paranoid if you don't think it's just fine. If Bill Clinton had proposed this stuff, we'd have people on here talking about armed revolution. The fact that we're at war doesn't mean we should hand ourselves over, blindfold, to those with an interest in betraying us. The federal government is still what it was before September 11, and (I know this will be more unwelcome, but it's still the truth) it's still what it was when Clinton was in office. Human nature is what it is and politicians, even republican ones, are politicians. Any question of any real improvement having been made by changing the president has been settled by the ignoble exploitation of the attack to get more power for themselves.

It isn't so much that so many here are outright enemies of freedom, it's the unreasoning quality of it. Anything from certain sites, or by certain people (including, bizarrely, Ron Paul) is immediately set upon by people who seem incapable of using anything but ad hominem arguments. These people seem to see no distinction between believing in freedom and being a communist or a liberal or a member of the taliban or whatever pops into their heads. Not only is this bad in itself, it poisons the whole forum. The more of it goes on, the less rational discussion goes on. This sort of thing happened before, but it's choking off good discussion. Another thing polluting the forum is that the newbies are often carrying in bad habits from other forums or chat rooms. For example, I've seen people write "R" for "are". Some of them just aren't that good at writing English. Too many people use all-caps instead of arguments.

Sure, this stuff happened before, but it's a lot worse now.

I don't think it's so much the attack, although that made it worse (the nuke 'em all crowd and suchlike), as it is the fact that people let their guards down when Bush got elected. How many of the people exulting over every new government power would have the attitude with Clinton in office? Few or none, I would venture. Why did we hate Clinton, anyway? Because he was the kind of person to exploit tragedies to expand his power? So, it turns out, is Bush. He had a fascist Attorney General? Well, congratulations, now we have a mere authoritarian. Does anyone doubt that Ashcroft would've treated Elian the same way Reno did? But I suppose that would be fine, so long as the kid's taken by our jack-booted thugs. Did we go through the whole election thing just to get the privilege of having the same policies Clinton or Gore would've enacted pushed through by someone with an R after his name? The bill's the same, but the person signing it hasn't slept with the interns, so we're happy? Was it all about the sex after all?

Do we have anything that we really stand for, or are we here to be cheerleaders for Bush?

Freepers have largely given up the fight for freedom, or were never involved in fighting for freedom in the first place and just joined recently so they could cheer each new chain. I'm afraid we won't get the old Free Republic back until there's a democrat in office. But why don't we like the democrats? Is it really nothing more than the reason people in Chicago don't like the Packers? That kind of political activism is more than a little hollow. There has to be some set of principles that we hold even our own to, or there really is no reason for us to exist. If we're that destitute of principles, not even principles but just plain thoughts of our own, we really don't have a reason to exist. Not just Free Republic, but the whole Right. If we give up on the idea of freedom this easily, we might as well hand over the country to the Left. Why not? They're winning anyway, and Bush is helping them do it. Look at all the new democrats coming in over the border. Unless things change pretty radically, there won't be anything worthwhile left in 20 years. Maybe we should just give up, then. If there was somewhere else, we might go there when things break down too much here, but there isn't. Why not, then? As it stands now, they won, not just America, but humanity. Just have a good time, don't care, munch your grass like a good little sheep, and hope things get better a few hundred years from now.

Maybe things will look better in the morning.

While I'm at it, I'll reply to some of the replies in the original thread.

To WIMom:

If FR is so bad, why do you stay? (I'm not flaming, but really want to know)

I suppose you could say it's the bits of the old Free Republic. But, I'm not sure everyone, even the old timers, would recognize what I have in mind by that. There's always been a lot of crap. I ignored it; you have to take is as a given on any internet forum. But now there's so much more of it.

At it's worst, Free Republic is no worse than the surrounding political culture. Maybe any sanctuary of rational discussion is bound to get inundated eventually, but that's a grim future to imagine for my beloved Free Republic: a cleaned up version of the Usenet. No porn, no spam, people get kicked out, but no higher level of intellectual discussion. Maybe it can be turned around (if I didn't think so, I'd probably leave). Maybe it'll turn around on it's own after the air clears.

I'll tell you my ambition for Free Republic in the far future. If a scholar hundreds of years from now had only Free Republic, he could construct a fairly good history of our civilization, after sorting all the chaos typical of the internet out. Even if he had other sources, Free Republic would still be very worthwhile, the same way collections of pamphlets from earlier times are. But there's more: there are threads I've participated in, and some I've just read, that are worthwhile not for their historical content but for their philosophical content, if I can put it so grandly. The discussions are of course almost all about political philosophy. These are threads worth reading for your own edification.

I'm afraid it all might get buried under typical internet crap, to the point that people in the future ignore the whole thing, which would be a great loss.

To WileyCoyote22:

I think the tribunals ae needed. They sure arn't going to put you or I up there. So whats the beef with that rant ?

It's not just that. It's the tribunals and the Patriot Act and the fact that the public, including far too many here, call for more.

You also fail to even know what War times is and that W has done nothing more than what FDR did.

That's not a high standard.

To Dan from Michigan:

Never say die.

Yeah, I guess so. I just don't see how I can do any good if the whole forum is swamped with these people.

To Howlin:

Get over yourself, will you? I've been here longer than you have and I have seen it come and go; just because we all don't agree with you doesn't mean WE are wrong.

If I'm wrong, tell me why. If we never get past who's saying it to what's being said, no one will ever be persuaded, and all we'll ever have is personal attacks.

To Lucius Cornelius Sulla:

I hate to say it, but thanks for making my point for me.

Things which once would have been crucial, and needed debating must be put aside until our lives have been made secure.

You're wrong. It's precisely now that defending freedom is most important, because now is the time it's most under attack. That many, such as you, would like to give the politicians a blank check makes it even more important.

If you really think that there is no difference between the Clinton/Gore/Reno administration and the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft administration you have allowed disagreement over policy to drive you into the arms of the bin Laden supporters.

Yeah, I've converted to Islam because I don't like Bush's policy. Or maybe bin Laden was really all worked up by the fact that our Constitution is being ignored.

In a war there is a front line, and the opposition front line. I am on the side of President Bush and the American people. Up to now, I had thought that you were there also.

This kind of attitude is part of the problem I'm talking about.

[Howlin]

I drove: obeyed the laws.

Flushed a toilet.

Used a credit card.

[Jefferson Adams]

That so many on FR support the insane policies being put into action by our government is sad, but understandable given the huge amount of conditioning that occurs every where you look in our society.

Yes.

I, for one, have believed for maybe 5 years now that America is gone. I keep fighting primarily because, as a Christian, I believe that I'm called to stand for what's right. But we ain't gonna win this one, folks. There *is* going to be a global government, our rights have been transmogrified into privileges that "our" government can give and take at their whimsy. Most likely, it all just plays into the last days scenario that the Bible describes.

There really is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats at this point. It's all smoke and mirrors to keep the sheep occupied while The Agenda goes forward, regardless of who's in office. With the Constitution now essentially totally ignored, by both Rs and Ds, there is nothing to stop them.

I suggest that it's time to start thinking about how you and your family are going to survive under what's coming. Start thinking details - there are a lot of choices to be made. For Christians, we can still be Light, and Light shines brightest in Darkness. And ultimately, that's what's most important.

[A.J.Armitage]

Instead of using the Constitution as a reason to oppose some government action, why don't you try the mental exercise of justifying your position on the practical impact that the action would have on people's lives. If the Constitution is as unerringly sacred as you believe, it should be easy for you to show that the Constitutional position produces the best results for real people. When you are able to do that, you won't need to use the Constitution as a crutch.

Two things. First, the Constitution is the law of the land, and every member of Congress and the president swear oaths to uphold it, so any politician who doesn't follow it is by definition a liar and not to be trusted.

Second, you can't trust any and all future politicians to do what'd right, which is why they must be forced to obey a set of limits. It isn't so much that they can't be trusted to know what right (although they can't be trusted for that, either), they can't be trusted to do what's right. If I were a politician, I would not exclude myself from that. All of them must be limited.

[zeugma]

By making the President and his administration turn his attention, even for a moment, from defeating our enemies to having to campaign for support from the American people, whose obligation it is to support him, you are endangering the lives of my family.

It is exactly the thought embodied in the bolded quote above that is extremely dangerous to the liberty of present and future americans.

It is not my obligation to support the president, it is the president's obligation to support the constitution. That's His Job. He's not doing that very well at the moment. He's prosecuting the undeclared 'war' well, but he's not doing anything to protect rights guaranteed us by the Constitution.

[alpowolf]

During a war, such as we are in now, the militia is subject to military discipline. By attempting to thwart the authority of the Commander in Chief, you are trying to accomplish a mutiny

So sorry, that's not correct. Read Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"...which hasn't happened yet.

[A.J.Armitage]

He wasn't calling America Nazi, he was calling you a Nazi. You proved him right.

[Jefferson Adams]

The fact that this nation is at war makes it MORE imperative that we citizens do our duty and see that the Constitution is upheld.

What an interesting sentence. According to the Constitution, we are NOT at war, unless it's declared by Congress. And Bush is NOT the Commander in Chief short of being in a declared war.

But then, who's counting? The Constitution has been dead for several years now.

[zeugma]

"Let's have no more talk of faith in men. Let the chains of the Constitution bind them down!"

Well said!

The vast majority of the people have no idea what powers the Constitution actually delegated to Fedgov. Article I Section 8 just ain't that long.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

It implies that Bush is the only one doing anything and we are all just along for the ride.

The President is the Commander in Chief, in absolute command of the military. As a member of the citizen militia, you have both a moral and a legal obligation to support him in his decisions, while the war is still going on. If you believe that he has usurped his authority, then under the Geneva convention you have an obligation to attempt to remove him from office, presuming that you are willing to suffer the consequences of committing mutiny.

Elections will of course be held, but the position of mutineers will only be successful, if the country faces defeat. That would mean that your interests, and the interests of our country's enemies would be the same, to ensure the military defeat of the United States. For should we prevail you would be in the same positon as the fictional Philip Nolan, in The Man Without a Country condemned to wander a world in which you will never again be permitted to hear the name 'The United States'.

[OWK]

I drove: obeyed the laws.

You'll pardon my raised eyebrow, and my skepticism.

[A.J.Armitage]

So you think fighting for freedom at exactly the point it's being attacked makes you the same as Adolf Hitler?

[OWK]

According to the Constitution, we are NOT at war, unless it's declared by Congress.

AYup....

But don't tell the others here.

They think we're at war, and they don't think any criticism is to be allowed.

[illbenice]

You know, some of us don't think that everything bad ought to be illegall.

you didnt completely miss AppyPappy's point did you?

[OWK]

The vast majority of the people have no idea what powers the Constitution actually delegated to Fedgov. Article I Section 8 just ain't that long.

Sadly, you're absolutely right.

90% of what the fedgov does, is extra-constitutional.

[backup]

What is needed is a basic Constitutional primer on the website that will explain several principles of Constitutional law. Seperation of Powers, the role of the Judiciary, do non-citizens have rights, etc., etc.

I'm not talking about controversial stuff. Rather, very basic third-grade level stuff that 80% of the posters on this forum seemed to have either (a) forgotten or (b) were never taught.

Perhaps this would end a lot of the idiotic posts. If someone posted a comment based on a seriously erroneous view of the Constitution or some principle thereof, the responder could simply reply by saying: "See III(A)(1)(b) of the Primer."

Just a thought. What do you think?

[Jefferson Adams]

The President is the Commander in Chief, in absolute command of the military. As a member of the citizen militia, you have both a moral and a legal obligation to support him in his decisions, while the war is still going on.

LOL - you just don't get it, do you? WHAT war? There *IS* no war until and unless its declared by Congress - then and only then can the President act as he is acting now, according to the Constitution.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the law you wish to follow, ESPECIALLY if you are in a position of leadership, which Bush and Congress are, allegedly by election of We the People. They are supposed to represent us, and they are supposed to obey the law.

But that's only how it is in a free Constitutional Republic, in which we no longer live.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

. Bush has already proven (to me, anyways) that his intentions are not benign, and are fast approaching the preclusion of good. It was not for nothing that the Founders so soberly considered, and so carefully, assiduously and deliberately included among our specifically enumerated rights that of keeping and bearing arms. No...we have nothing to fear...so long as we remain cognizant of the bounds of human ambition, and the frailty of the spirit which constrains it.

I wonder if you are aware that your combining a statement of Presidential iniquity, with the known reason for the second amendment, and the statement about human fraility, either means nothing, or it implies a desire to accomplish the assassination of the President of the United States. If this is not what you mean to imply, you had better say so in short order.

[KirkandBurke]

It seems to be generally true that once liberties are encroached or compromised by legislation, judicial activism or government fiat, they are rarely, if ever, returned to the people. When they're gone, they're gone. To wait until "it's over" is probably to wait until it's too late.

[A.J.Armitage]

It's not that they don't know it, it's that they hate the Constitution. I'd be all for it if you could get it done, but it might just be too "politically incorrect" right now to get done.

[Jefferson Adams]

They think we're at war, and they don't think any criticism is to be allowed.

I just heard an interview of a man who was born in 1925 Germany, was a Hitler Youth, and who fought with the German army in WWII. The parallels are truly amazing. BTW, have you ever read "The Ominous Parallels" by Peikoff? Anyway, the interview is HERE if anyone is interested.