Republican History Revealed

[justshutupandtakeit]

In Back to Basics for the Republican Party author Michael Zak (FR's distinguished patriot, Grand Old Partisian) undertakes the heroic and herculean task of clearing the name of the Republican Party from the thicket of lies, distortions and misrepresentations which has been cultivated by the Democrat/media alliance. Since any partisian argument in today's America must begin with the refutation of chronic and consistent lies told about the GOP, Zak's book provides the necessary ammunition to do just that.

This well-written, interesting and enjoyable tour of GOP history can be of use to any patriot who wants to know the truth about the histories of the two major parties. It traces the origins of the GOP to the proto-Republican, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists and that of the Democrat Party to its ancestors Jefferson, Clinton and Burr. A brief survery of Federalist and Whig antecedents and policies is sketched to give historic context to events. Since the GOP was created and grew in opposition to the policies and failures of the Democrat Party to extend the benefits of the Constitution to all Americans, that party's history is also examined.

And a sorry history it is. A story of treachery, short-sightedness, racism and economic ignorance unfolds as we see the Democrats consistently for 170+ years fight against allowing the Blacks a chance to achieve full freedom and economic success. Opposition to that fight has defined the best of the GOP's actions. Every advance in Civil Rights for Blacks has come from GOP initiatives and against Democrat opposition. Every setback for Blacks achieving constitutional protection has come from Democrat intitiatives and against GOP opposition. Racists have led the Democrats during most of their history, in sharp contrast to Republicans. All the evils visited against Black are of Democrat design. Democrats created and maintained the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, it was Democrats lynching Blacks, beating Blacks, exploiting Blacks and perpetrating murderous riots which killed Blacks in

Zak rescues the reputation of the party from the slanders thrown against it during the Civil War and Reconstruction, many of which are popular around FR. He also clearly shows the mistaken disavowal of GOP principles which brought the modern party to its lowest state and allowed the demagogues of Democrats to paint the party as "racist." This was because of the disastrous turn to States' Rights which grew from the Goldwater campaign. It was the final straw in the process which transformed the share of the Black vote from 90-95% GOP to 90% democrat. A modern tragedy of immense proportions.

This is a book which should be studied carefully by Republicans in order to counter the barrage of Lies trumpeted daily by the RAT/media. While it is a work of a partisian, Back to Basics does not hesitate to point to GOP mistakes, failures and incompetence in carrying out its mission nor does it neglect to give Democrats credit when credit is due for actions which are productive of good for our nation as a whole. Unfortunately, those are far too few.

In order to effectively plan for the future we must be fully aware of the past, Zak helps us achieve that awareness.

[stainlessbanner]

I strongly doubt that any of the black southerners feel as strongly about your lost cause issues.

There are actually quite a few. Many younger blacks are showing conservative values - we have some excellent in-house folks on FR who can attest to this.

[stainlessbanner]

Would you prefer Southerners to vote Democrat instead?

Again - answer the question. Interesting how you know my voting patters. What would you say of Perdue's election in GA --- you would have preferred the good people of Georgia to vote Dem, right?

[stainlessbanner]

cute, now answer the questions, Partisan. If you can't support them, retract, and drop it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson's name was never to be even mentioned in Washington's presence he abominated the man so. Fortunately he died before having to see J sworn in as president. That alone would have probably killed him.

Hamilton was the principle architect of the modern capitalist economy of the US which has allowed the creation of the most powerful and free state in world history. But for him the Slavers' Revolt would probably have succeded.

[Carry_Okie]

The very character of your unqualified assessment gives me cause for doubt. We may not share the metrics for what constitutes success.

Hamilton, witlessly or otherwise, contributed greatly to giving our enemies the tools with which to destroy, just as Bush, with the Patriot Act, has given Hillary just the tools she needs to institute a total police state. Consider the symmetry in principle, but not intent.

I agree that Jefferson was more demagogue than statesman. Still, the observations he uttered were worthy admonitions then, just as they are most often used now: admonitions against government debt (via centralized banking) and standing armies (overextended commitments to protect investors abroad), and admonitions for the individual right to keep and bear arms. Considering the land grabs we see across the West, the slow destruction of our children in public schools, and the over-commitment of troops while our borders remain exposed, you may yet see what ignoring those principles cost when (not if) those powers are used against the people.

[Grand Old Partisan]

SB: I apologize for everything I have ever said or thought.

Seriously, though, I can't be expected to go on and on debating someone who is so far apart from me ideologically. I, for instance, do not believe the U.S. flag is a symbol of "emprialism and oppression".

Let's just stick to posting factoids at each other and stop wasting both our time with pointless ideological debates.

[mac_truck]

Who on FR is calling for the "destruction of America"?

The League of the South comes to mind, or does posting their "research" for "discussion" purposes not count?

I saw the term Abe Hitler posted yesterday one of your crowd. That sounds "destructive" doesn't it?

I'm calling you out

in your dreams lightweight..

[stainlessbanner]

Let's just stick to posting factoids at each other

Great! Below are two statements you made. Present the facts that support them:

• Confederate/Iraqi claim
• Every Confederate rebel was a Democrat.

[stainlessbanner]

Who on FR is calling for the "destruction of America"?

Give us some examples. Partisan and I are sticking to facts - you're turn.

[Grand Old Partisan]

My first statement to which you refer stands as I wrote it, not as you rewrote it. My second statement I have expounded on over and over on FR, and I'm not going to do so again for you (and the next guy and the next guy, etc. who comes along).

[stainlessbanner]

Cut and paste your facts or provide the link, sir.

[Grand Old Partisan]

I do have a life, you know, sir.

[billbears]

Alexander Hamilton was ten times the man Thomas Jefferson was

Hamilton argued for an elected monarch, a national bank, a mercantilistic state much as Britain had at the time, Senators for life exactly as the House of Lords, and a subjugation of the states to the federal government instead of the federalism originally established by the Founders.

Hamilton was a worthless man. All I can say is too bad Burr killed him. Else within a few years people might have seen him for what he really was, a monarchist with an iron fist

[mac_truck]

The Georgia gubernatorial election is a positive development as was Chambliss' upset for Senate. However I'd wait until Perdue is re-elected [after changing his mind on the flag referendum] before claiming it a watershed.

I've read enough comments right here about folks wanting payback on Perdue back over the flag issue, to think otherwise.

Would you prefer Southerners to vote Democrat instead?

Ya mean like they did in Louisiana? No.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Success in the material world for this nation means it is strong, independent and wealthy. All those flowed from Hamilton's program. Those are my metrics, are yours different?

Government is the only "tool" our enemies need. Without Hamilton's program our enemies would have just used much simpler tools to strangle the infant nation in its cradle. Our nation survived the Slavers' Revolt only because of the tools Hamilton provided the government. Paranoid fantasies about Hillary and the Patriot Act are irrelevent to this discussion. There is no power which cannot be used against Good by Evil.

Jefferson never understood the Hamilton program nor banking nor anything about modern economics. His own personal crushing load of debts warped his view of the financial world. Modern capitalism is impossible without a banking system. Hamilton's debt program was much more than mere debt and was actually the creation of a money supply (when there was almost no specie within the country) created by capitalizing the WORD of the US government. It was one of the most brilliant financial achievements of any age. Our debt became the most highly rated IN THE WORLD within months of its passage. Nor do standing armies have anything to do with protection of investments today. Jefferson and others' hysterical fear of them just seems quaint or delusionary. Like fear of witches.

Anyone taking much of what Jefferson said on almost any subject is skating on thin ice. He is one of the most over-rated presidents in our history with one major achievement which resulted from pure blind luck.

[hirn_man]

Hero worship of the CSA does not equal conservatism.

[stainlessbanner]

I agree, however, your statement has no correlation to post 161!

[bourbon]

That graph illustrates the different educational levels affect on elistment.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not what the graph I posted shows. The graph merely shows regional variations in recruitment. It says nothing about education's putative effect on recruitment.

Also....The DoD's own analysis says, "no one factor can explain variations in enlistment rates between different sections of the country; they are more likely attributable to a wide array of economic, social, and demographic factors." I take it you disagree with them?

Besides, the same report notes that there were only "minor" regional differences in the so-called "high-quality accessions" (H.S. graduate recruits who scored better than 50% on the AFQT). There were, by contrast, significant regional differences in total accessions. For instance, the South and West region's contribution of accessions totaled 65.6% of all accessions (the South, 42.6% and the West, 23.0%). Whereas, the Northeast and North Central's accessions totaled only 34.4% of all accessions.

The only point I was trying to make in my posts on this thread is that Southerners are presently over-represented in the Armed Forces.

[Ohioan]

A book seeking to distance the Republican Party from the turn it took with Goldwater, is a book seeking to turn the Republican Party to the Left--a form of neo-Abolitionism, if you will, no longer seeking the abolition of slavery--for we have not had slavery in a very long time--but abolition of the entire American heritage.

Consider this statement in your initial rant:

Since the GOP was created and grew in opposition to the policies and failures of the Democrat Party to extend the benefits of the Constitution to all Americans, that party's history is also examined.

Just what sort of "history" are you offering? Or let me make a point, without being cute or rhetorical. Since you have claimed a Hamiltonian root for the Republican Party, and certainly cannot deny the Republican credentials of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, please share with us what specific Constitutional benefits that Hamilton or Lincoln set out to extend to "all Americans?"

I know that you do not refer to the suffrage, because the Constitutional benefit to the suffrage was defined as being that determined separately in each State. It is also very clear, that neither Hamilton nor Lincoln favored what would be considered universal male suffrage, today.

But I do not want to put words into your mouth.

It is obvious that, for whatever reason, you do not want a broad based Republican Party. You want to bring back the Republican Party of the Radical Reconstructionists--the hate crazed zealots, who sought to punish the South for the War. This lunacy would be funny, if you were not undermining the fight to maintain the very Constitution, you claim to be supporting.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[mac_truck]

ping!