Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution

Free Republic | June 10, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[mugs99]

Thanks Jim, we needed that!
We should all be focused and active. The liberal socialist machine must be defeated at any cost.

Restore the Constitution is a great battle cry!

[betty boop]

I'm not near as negative on the Republicans as you are though. In any case, if we are to make any progress at all toward our goals, the Democrat Party must not be allowed to retake control of any branch of the government (IMHO).

I guess I am pretty negative about Republicans these days, Jim -- at least those outside the Bush Administration. I have great confidence in and tremendous respect for the President and his close advisors, especially Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Dr. Rice. I just note there are quite a number of congressional Pubbies that seem to give him almost as much trouble as the Dims.... Instead of standing with their President on, say, tax cuts (e.g., Grassley, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, et al.), they find every "high-minded" excuse to stick to the stinky status quo...instead of letting their leader LEAD.... Heaven forfend that those mandarins should ever follow anyone or anything but their own narrowly-defined political self-interest.

But you're absolutely right -- the Party of the Dim must be systematically denied the resumption of control of any branch of the government. That is essential! And this is so because the Left systematically lies and cheats. (Pubbies tend not to do truly outrageous stuff like that.) But the Left obviously has no compunction about rigging/stealing elections, or outright, calculated, deliberate lying to the public. And the general public manages to remain either clueless or indifferent about the Left's active subversion of American institutions. They get sucked into the rhetoric, not realizing how very bad the reality is for them in terms of both liberty and national security.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I like to dream...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

[WhiteGuy]

Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution

Mr. R.

As usual, your thread is thoughtful and sincere.

I agree 100% with your headline.

I can't share your confidence in the gop to Defend the Constitution.

Here in Ohio we have two pathetic senators and a putz governor.

All 3 are gop and all 3 need to be replaced.

Yet as incumbants, they will be up for re-election and once again I will be asked to hold my nose and support the lesser of two evils.

I have ONE vote. Thats my voice, thats the only way I have to express my dissatisfaction with the nature of our "leadership".

I refuse to support a candidate or a party that does not represent me.

From a cynical point of view, the "bb"s will tell me that my vote doesn't matter anyway...........something about 0.036%?

My vote matters to me, and it must be earned.

[NormsRevenge]

Why fight and struggle for power and then not use it?

WE need to work hard to get a supermajority in the senate, 55 or 56 Republican senators, to me, isn't enough.

We need an overwhelming majority. It worked for the Raw New Deal democRats and we have been paying for their efforts for years in building a dependent system par non. A populace dependent on govt for anything and everything has to stop be the order of and fundamental social program changes and the day and eliminations and /or re-structuring thereof need to be made.

[NormsRevenge]

Oops. I have a sensitive damn Intellimouse. 8-\ I meant to say..

A populace dependent on govt for anything and everything has to stop being the order of the day and fundamental social/entitlements program changes and eliminations and / or re-structuring & adjustments need to be made.

[RockyMtnMan]

Once you have that supermajority do you honestly think they will represent you?

[NormsRevenge]

Honestly? Not without putting spurs into their sides and a tether on their desires to satiate their appetites for OPM (other people's money).

We're talking about politicians here, after all, mere mortals aswim in a sea of money. Like ducks take to a pond, we will need to provide guidance as the oceans of money they handle these days have a tendency to make even good people lose sight of whose it is.

And frankly, the Constitution doesn't deal with fiscal structure to any serious degree.

No, that has been done by those who came long after the Founding Fathers were in their graves.

FRom the creation of the Federal Reserve to the imposition of the Income Tax, these acts too, were enacted in "good faith" to serve the greater good of all of us.

The side effect, intended or otherwise, has been to enslave rather then to serve the common good.

[Cyber Liberty]

BUMP to that. Workin' to make it happen in these parts.....

(Been on vacation, be posting more later. Over an out)

[Brian Allen]

Thanks -- B A

[Brian Allen]

<< Which is worse a sudden violent jerk or a slow removal of the bandage? >>

A slow removal of the bandage boils the FRog.

[Fearless Flyers]

The Constitution Party is only three years old. Making a statement that they have no opinions on anything important is a little out there. They stand by the Constitution as their name implies, they are Pro_life, Pro Guns and anti-U.N. these issues may not seem important to you but they are to other conservatives.

As a relatively new political party they do suffer weaknesses in administration and are still striving to be recognized. They are undermanned on the leadership side, which some may see as a strength since the party platform is the Constitution, there are fewer people in a position, to corrupt their message with personal interpretations. Being only three years old suggests that they have less to hide and fewer scandals to defend.

I understand your frustration with not receiving a response to your e-mails, and that does imply an inert leadership, but also suggests the party is ripe for development since they are still building a support staff.

My objection to the Libertarians is their stance on open borders and their weakness on National defense.

We have been told at our local Republican Committee meetings that they are "not interested in issues and are more concerned with fund raising". Republican issues seem to develop at the national level and are ignored when initiated on the local level, this is contrary to the principles of the Constitution. The local meetings are often a battle of egos fighting over leadership roles. This seems epidemic in the party. Republicans will often enter debate on Congressional issues without support from third parties, as the democrats encourage their pet causes to join in debate and offer suggestions the Republicans find themselves out gunned and are forced to defend their failures as "Compassionate Conservatism", which really means they compromised an important issue.

When attending Constitution Party meetings everyone participates in issue discussions and civil debate is openly engaged without malice towards opposing sides. Of course this is easily achieved because of the limited attendance.

Conservative theory demands we offer an alternative to the Democrats if we succeed in making them irrelevant, what alternative do you offer?

[betty boop]

Why fight and struggle for power and then not use it?

Exactly, NormsRevenge. The Dims in power use their majority to make new policy happen; virtually everybody on that side of the aisle lines up in support: The Dims can summon a united front.

Even out of power they can unite to block changes in the status quo they dislike. Just look at the success the Dims have had in (unconstitutionally) blocking the President's judicial appointments. If President Bush could get his "constitutional constructivist" judges on the bench, it would likely be his most important and lasting legacy, and would do so much to restore constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law (that has been so gutted in recent times).

Which is why he is being fought tooth and nail in the Senate: The Dims know very well that so-called "conservative judges" would be inclined to put the kerbosh on legislative innovations that do not meet constitutional tests -- and that would thereby reduce the power (actually, the usurpations) of Congress.

The Pubbies, on the other hand, are a pack of individualists. They'll "substitute their own judgment" in lieu of accepting direction from their leadership at the drop of a hat. Thus divided, they are helpless to stop the Dims even when the Dims are out of power.

I suspect in many cases the Pubbies are simply lacking in political courage. This President has plenty of that; but he often can't get his own people in Congress on-board and, thus isolated, his policy agenda is undermined. It really is a most discouraging state of affairs.

[jmc813]

do you know of any Republicans on the national stage who are willing to endorse all the above policies?

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[maxwell]

Currently we are blessed with Bush43, a man who, with all his virtues, still cannot pronounce NUCLEAR as well as non-native speakers for whom English is a second language. What is up with that? I thought the Republican Party was the party where words had meaning and actions had consequences.

That's part of his strategery.

Hehehe... I think he does it on purpose, actually... Just to p!ss folks like my colleagues (noocular physicicists) off...

[sweetliberty]

Ping!

[MrLeRoy]

I count the liberals [...] as our primary domestic enemy number one. I count the [...] RINOs as domestic enemy number two.

So no RINOs are liberals?

[robertpaulsen]

"The number of representatives for each state is determined by the number of people in each state,"

Yes and no. One wonders what the House and Electoral College would look like, and how they would function, if we stayed with the original one representative per 30,000 people.

We have added almost 200 million new Americans since the size of the House was frozen at its current 435. What kind of "peoples" representation is this?