Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution

Free Republic | June 10, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[TLBSHOW]

Great thread and true, vote em all out and take back our country from the media and the liberal schools.

But we must keep their feet to the fire while we do it I would think..

[Amelia]

the only appropriate political involvement was to vote. She thought until the philosophy of the country, as expressed by the 'intellectuals', was changed, we could not expect political results. I think she was generally correct and the best we can realistically hope for, regardless of JimRob's solution of destroying the Dems and liberals, is to slow the progression of statism.

I tend to agree. And, sitting home without voting will certainly not change anything. It only ensures that the other guy has a voice and you don't.

[Mad Dawgg]

"My conclusion is we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary."

I was talking with a group of friends the other day and the topic of Washington and politicians came up. We were all in that semi-euphoric state induced by several good beers and some tasty bratwurst cooked over a cheery campfire. One of my more radical mates ventured we would all be better off if some Muslim nutcase were to nuke Washington D.C. while congress was in full session. Some of us were aghast at the idea but my mate carried on with his point.

“First,” he said. “We would have new rules.”

Rule One: No lawyers allowed within a 100 mile radius of the capital (Where ever it may be located for some of us pointed out that depending on what type of nuke was used D.C. could be uninhabitable for a while.)

Rule Two: Term Limits for everybody in Federal government including secretaries and janitors.

Rule Three: Lobbyists will be shot on sight.

Rule Four: First order of business for the new congress would be to put forth a new amendment to the constitution clarifying what the first ten amendments really mean. For instance the second amendment means citizens of the USA can own guns period no permits no license nothing. Think “shall not be infringed!”

Rule Five: Income Taxes will be 10% and everybody pays, no deductions, no loopholes, the IRS will be abolished and there will be no payroll deduction. Everybody writes a check to the federal government at the end of each month to pay their tax debt.

Rule Six: Congress will put forth another amendment which states no deficit spending and no raise in taxes ever, if they don’t have enough money to pay for the programs then they must cut the budget.

Rule Seven: The liberals can have as many social programs they wish and the US government will administer them. All such programs will be paid by voluntary contributions from the citizens of the USA and other countries. BUT, under no circumstances will Federal TAX DOLLARS be spent on social programs and if any tax dollars do mysteriously end up in said social programs then whoever is found responsible will be hung at dawn on the Capital steps and left there for one month.

Rule Eight: All Senators and Congressmen will be paid the same amount, 70k a year. For every day over 10 they spend per month outside of their respective districts they lose 1000 dollars from their paychecks.

Rule Nine: Immigration will be regulated and the borders of Mexico and Canada will be monitored and an immediate move to construct barriers (Walls) at both borders.

Rule Ten: We nuke France (every year)

After my good freind finished telling us the above none of us could come up with a good reason why his wasn't a good idea (especially number 10)

[unspun]

Well, the primaries are the time to fight like thunder to promote our own and keep pro-murder, socialist, statist candidates out, aren't they? Then, when it comes to general elections in states such as Illinois... if the RINO's know they can get our support with their own candidates why would they ever nominate real conservatives?

Like Dr. Dobson, I find it very unlikely I'd pick one of two pro-abortion candidates, for example, blood virtually dripping from their canine teeth, just because one has a certain party label. When an official is against the right to life, he is hardly for the constitutional rights which depend upon it. And in Illinois, there are many Democrat voters and a good number of candidates/officials who are more conservative in basic "social policies" than many on the GOP side.

As a rule of thumb, I think it's best to vote for individual candidates one can feel morally comfortable voting for.

I'm all for consolidating power at general election time (as opposed to competing against conservatives!) but only if we can say that the power is at least propotionately our power and not that of the RINO husband of the battered wife, so to speak. Let's remember, "all politics is local politics."

(Haven't read JR's piece thoroughly yet, though I generally like what I've scanned.)

My lil' ol' views.

[Grampa Dave]

Bookmarked as Real Politics 101 by Jim Robinson.

We need 60 senators in 2005 and more house members. Then things will start to change even more rapidly.

[Grampa Dave]

FYI

You may want to read and bookmark this as we get deeper into the upcoming election.

[DPB101]

Doesn't matter what the Founders had in mind for our Republic and or what they wrote into the Constitution. . .

No it doesn't.Liberals are correct on one thing: the constitution is a living document. While denying they do it, the Federal courts do reflect popular opinion. When Republicans have the majorities Democrats once enjoyed, we will see the Supreme Court "discover" that yes, states have the power to ban abortion, the Second Amendment means what it says, affirmative action is unconstitutional and the Federal government has no business censoring religious speech. Despite what the naysayers say, we have made great progress in the last ten years--more progress than in the preceeding 62 years. Consider the margins Democrats needed in the House of Representatives to get us where we are:

1937-1939
Dem 331
Rep 89

1965-1967
Dem 295
Rep 140

1977-1979
Dem 292
Rep 143

1993-1995
Dem 258
Rep 176

The trend today is not the Democrat's friend. Rove and Bush are correct. We are at a turning point. 2004 could be the year parity is smashed and the GOP begins to gain the majorities the Democrat party had for most of the 20th century.

[justshe]

This would be an excellent essay to quote from as we get deeper into the election cycle, you are correct.

Bookmarked and bumped!

[Spiff]

A couple of years ago you would have heard a lot of argument from me against what you just said. I would have given a laundry list of all the problems with the Republican Party, etc.

But, since then, I've come around to your way of thinking. I jumped back in to Republican politics, got elected as a PC and then as the president of the South East Arizona Republican Club, and I'm committed to working within the party to defeat the Democrats AND the RINOs in order to do my part to preserve the Constitution and save the Republic.

I'm behind you 100%, Jim.

[Grampa Dave]

Whenever, whatever you and Wolfstar call the nay sayers start to naysay, this will be an excellent reference.

It will be a good reference for the upcoming Freepathons.

[Grampa Dave]

Congratulations on this accomplishment:

I jumped back in to Republican politics, got elected as a PC and then as the president of the South East Arizona Republican Club, and I'm committed to working within the party to defeat the Democrats AND the RINOs in order to do my part to preserve the Constitution and save the Republic.

I'm behind you 100%, Jim.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

[RightWhale]

we're now seeing where the democrats are wanting to do away with the electoral college

It's a serious problem. That Senators are supposed to be expert statesman and selected by a small body of people who have a greater than average understanding of matters of state makes a great deal of sense. Expertise cannot be elected, it must be appointed. The Senate is no different now from the House except for the greater attention given Senators by the news/editor media, so demagogues can become famous overnight.

Should popular election also be used to select the President and VP, expertise can be expected to disappear from those offices, too. Can't wait until the USSC becomes elected rather than appointed. At least we will have ringside seats to the spectacle of the destruction of the Constitution, just as we will have ringside seats to the final plummet of the famous killer asteroid. It's just a matter of time for either event, but we can, with luck and diligence, indefinitely delay mob rule in the first.

[rintense]

Liberals are only part of the problem. If conservatives/Republicans are the self-appointed guardians of the Constitution, then we need to do a better job than we are doing now. We can only blame liberals for so long. We can either keep bitching about liberals and do nothing, or we take it upon ourselves to elect officials who use the Constitution as their guideline to serve.

And in order to be proactive, conservatives as a collective group need to grow a collective spine. It still amazes me how quickly Republicans tucked tail and ran during the whole Trent Lott ordeal. Lott being right or wrong wasn't the problem. The problem was that so few had the guts to stand up against one of the most commonly played liberal assaults out there.

If we, as conservatives, Republicans, Neocons, whatever, don't make it our responsibility to defend the Constitution, then we are worse than liberals- for we have failed in our core principles and beliefs- and made the words our Fathers wrote and defended worth nothing.

[Mo1]

It will be a good reference for the upcoming Freepathons

Thanks for the ping Grampa

[Tauzero]

Bump to that, RJ.

Electoral politics might actually be one of the worst places to concentrate our energies. One alternative that comes to mind: education of jurors, and participation on juries.

Doesn't matter who passes the laws if juries will not convict. And in criminal cases, you just need one obstinate juror to block enforcement.

[Mo1]

As we move forward into the next election cycle, the FR battle cry will be: Restore the Republic! Vote out the RATs!

EXCELLENT Thread Jim ... Thank You!!

[Darksheare]

Thanks Jim.

[Sabertooth]

If the problem with politics is the very politicians who are desperate to remain in power, then it seems to me in our interests to make sure that politicians are desperate to gain our votes. If politicians know they can get our votes under any circumstances, their desperation will turn to votes on which they can't depend.

Every election cycle, one subset of the electorate receives an inordinate amount of attention from candidates of both of the major parties: the swing voters. Swing voters decide elections, and the policies pursed in the aftermath. The reason gungrabbing RINOs are sitting on their hands while the AWB faces sunset is because working class gun owners were a decisive swing vote in the 2000 election. No one wants to offend citizens whose votes are in play.

It's interesting, isn't it, that we ignorant voters hold more power over the politicians than the Leftist, anti Second Amendment media? Yet so often on Free Republic, I see the proposition put forth that the GOP is powerless to face down the media, even when the latter is hopelessly out of step with the electorate. Posters flatter themselves as "political realists," when they wring their hands in the face of the Leftist Pundits of Oz.

So, how do conservatives whose first priority is to preserve and restore the Constitution make politicians averse to offending them? Not by telling our elected officials or any political party that our votes are in the bag, that's for certain. The Constitution will not become a priority for politicians until their support for it becomes crucial to their political survival. We need to make certain they understand that if they do not support the Constitution, they will not survive.

Telling politicians of either party that they can count on our votes under all circumstances is tantamount to bootlicking, and will be respected as much. In political marriages, cheaters who are allowed to cheat will continue to cheat, since they pay no price for their unfaithfulness.

So, should we support the Republican Party, flawed and cowardly as it is?

Certainly we should.

Should we promise vote GOP under all circumstances, regardless of whether and how much they assist the Leftist agenda for unconstitutionally federalizing our daily lives, only to serve the short-term political interests of remaining comfortable and in power?

Not if we want the leaders of Republican Party to make restoring and preserving the Constitution their first priority.

Regards,

[moneyrunner]

On a previous thread on an article by David Horowitz ”If You Would Rather Be Right Than President . . . Find Something Else to Do” I made a similar comments. There are quite a few people, especially on the Right, who would rather be ideologically pure than be in power. Some are driven by ideology, others by theology. Living halfway to heaven, their primary earthly role is to make sure that conservatives or Republicans who are willing to compromise in order to win elections are defeated. That this allows the election of liberals or socialists is, to them, of less concern than that their jihad has made RINOs extinct.

Liberals don’t have the same moral hang-ups. First, because they live in the here and now and are convinced there is no ultimate judge. Second, because they have seen the positive effects of having their side in power, even if part of “their side” is not totally on board. The fact is that many Democrats are to the right of Pelosi and Daschle yet they are the Democrats’ congressional leaders. They set the agenda.

You have an opportunity to implement your ideals once you get elected to office. If you lose, your opponent gets to implement his.

If you decide you are not going to run for office personally, the most logical way of deciding whom to support is to determine whose ideas are most like yours. However, if the choice involves more that two people, it is wise to determine who will do the most damage to your ideals and vote in such a way as to prevent his election. To do otherwise is to do violence to your ideals.

In their drive for ideological purity, some on the Right are quick to demonize those who do not toe the line. One of the facets of Reagan’s character that I remember is that he did not try to demonize anyone. He felt that government was often the problem, not the solution, but his comments were made with a general feeling of goodwill. I do not remember him either denouncing nor cheerleading homosexuals, pro-choice advocates and others who are not firm adherents of the Christian or Ideological Right; and he must have known more than his share, having spent most of his adult life in Hollywood.

We are all sinners. Some of us lie, cheat, commit adultery, engage in aberrant sexual behavior or commit a host of sins that are not crimes. As Christians, we do not want to justify those who commit sin. Yet, I would not like to see a requirement of moral perfection before we are allowed to serve the people in government office. Political leaders in a non-theocratic state are not primarily moral leaders. They are not responsible for the state of your soul, but for the welfare of your community, state and nation. And to govern in a free society, they have to have the support of a large portion of the people. It is easier to get that support if you are inclusive rather than exclusive.

We’re not going to win elections, or advance our agenda if we tell those with whom we have disagreements that we don’t want their vote. The intelligent and moral position for those who operate in the political arena is to try to get those who are persuadable to see things their way. I say “moral” because if we are concerned about the spiritual effects of political decisions, the last thing we want to do is to help evildoers to attain power. Human being are prone to sin and it is moral to avoid electing leaders who will lead them to sin. If the choice is between two evils, we must choose the lesser. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it is lesser.

Some of the third party advocates believe that if we drive out the RINOS and allow liberals to be elected, the people will realize their mistake and throw the rascals out. There is little evidence to support this theory. Hitler was not turned out of office by the German people. In the USSR, when Stalin died the people wept despite his having murdered tens of millions of them. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, could probably have been elected to a third term. The current South African government is popular despite the falling living standards of the average black African there. “I’ll go vote for the third party to show the rascally Republicans that they can’t take me for granted” is a self defeating Walter Mitty pipe dream. You want to know how to drive the Republicans to the Left? Convince them that the only way they’ll win the next election is to move there because the Christian or Libertarian Right is going to sit out the next election.