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.

[wasp69]

Yep, GOPart used to work for the State Department.

No kidding! How did you find this out?

The best thing that ever comes out of the State Department is the effluent in the sewer pipes...

Yeah, too true. It worries me that someone of such "stature" can't hold his own in a debate with someone else that has nothing more than a West Virginia public high school education. I think that says volumes about the caliber of personnel at the State Department.

[thatdewd]

No kidding! How did you find this out?

It was in an "interview" on a website. The website was a commercial arrangement, where "members" signed up to promote something they were selling, and got to have "interviews" posted. It was a bunch of cheesy crap, IMHO. I'm sure he never mentions his background on FR because he knows how FReepers feel about morons from the State Department, and it would hurt his attempts to pimp his novel.

It worries me that someone of such "stature" can't hold his own in a debate with someone else that has nothing more than a West Virginia public high school education.

It worries me that someone of his "stature" couldn't hold own in a debate with someone that had a sixth grade education from anywhere. My friend's kids have a better and more realistic understanding of history than GOPart does. Seriously. I'll never forget the first time I ran across one of his posts, it was just so childish and silly that I had to stop and seriously ask him if he was in gradeschool. I really wanted to know, and I wasn't joking. I thought he was some ten year old that was playing with daddy's computer (I think I asked him that, too). Alas, it was not so...he allegedly believes his bizarre and fantastical nonsense. The first time I saw him posting his drivel, he was saying that Sherman's Army never burned or looted a single thing while marching through Georgia. My head almost exploded.

I think that says volumes about the caliber of personnel at the State Department.

AMEN. Having seen the drivel that pours out of his mind, it's easy to understand just what the hell's wrong with the State Department. It hires people like him.

[wasp69]

Do you have a link for this "interview"? Does the rest know this little fact? I'm sure they would love to know that they are aguing with an ex-employee of the State Department (GOPart), a Keynesian/Hamiltonian acolyte (fakeit), and an admitted democrat (Wlat). I think the admitted, and exposed, trends of this troop say plenty about why they subscribe to the "Union at all cost" theory and ignore so much documented fact.

I agree with everything you said. I almost vomited when I read the line about socialists being the real conservatives and the convoluted reasoning behind it.

[wasp69]

Nevermind, thatdewd, I found the link.


Hey, everybody, we have a real political heavy hitter in our midst. It would seem that the talented Mr. "Z" was once an employee of the State Department:

Michael Zak: I went to Georgetown University and lived in DC for five years total while at the State Department before moving to Chicago, where among other things, I wrote the book.

So, we have quite a group that defends and excuses the flagrant abuses by the Lincoln Whitehouse: an admitted Democrat, a Keynesian/Hamiltonian apostle, and an ex State Department employee. There is, at least for me, a new and better understanding of who and what I debate with and what their views actually are.

[4CJ]

I'm sure they would love to know that they are aguing with an ex-employee of the State Department (GOPart), a Keynesian/Hamiltonian acolyte (fakeit), and an admitted democrat (Wlat).

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

I agree with everything you said. I almost vomited when I read the line about socialists being the real conservatives and the convoluted reasoning behind it.

I like what 'dewd wrote as well. And yeah, when I saw Mr. Z's attempt to portray socialists as conservatives I almost puked as well.

[thatdewd]

Do you have a link for this "interview"?

I had to look it up, but here it is: Small Friendly Planet. It's more of an advertisement than a real interview. According to the website's "Mission" page, its purpose is to help its members "get the word out about yourself or organization in an efficient, strategic manner in a supportive environment".

It works like this: If one of us lived in DC and started a business, say, shaving smiley faces onto hairy dog butts, then we could "join" the website and have an "interview" published. Then whenever we were discussing the dog butt shaving business, we could reference our "interview" to make the business sound more impressive. Looking at the site's member list, I was surprised there wasn't a dog butt shaving business already there, LOL.

[wasp69]

Looking at the site's member list, I was surprised there wasn't a dog butt shaving business already there, LOL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[thatdewd]

Nevermind, thatdewd, I found the link.

oops, I didn't see this until after I posted 726.

[LTCJ]

Just so you know this, ahem, "patriot" couldn't even keep his mouth shut on a funeral thread for a fallen Southerner. It should also be noted that he did not even have the courtesy to apologize when he was called on it. Some "patriot", huh?

Words fail me.

As a soldier, I am deeply offended that someone would take advantage of the occasion of a comrade-in-arms death as a platform to spout their own peculiar brand of hate.

You have revealed yourself to be without honor.

[wasp69]

As a soldier, I am deeply offended that someone would take advantage of the occasion of a comrade-in-arms death as a platform to spout their own peculiar brand of hate.

As a sailor, I am in complete agreement with you.

[wasp69]

Looking at the site's member list, I was surprised there wasn't a dog butt shaving business already there, LOL.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It was false when you posted it earlier and still false.

Madison and ALL the other Founders believed the UNION was perpetual and once the constitution was ratified the only way to change it was through amendment.

Your claims about their beliefs are LIES.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton was a master negoitator determined to obtain as strong a govenment as possible he IN NO WAY WAS a monarchist. His speech at the convention worked exactly as he wished. The Randolph Plan was mired down and not going anywhere, H.'s spoke of a government EVEN STRONGER than the one under the Randolph plan which jolted the delegates into approving the Randolph Plan the NEXT DAY.

Good thing you are not negoitiating with such a genius or you would be wondering where your pants went.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Dear waspie I am no Keynesian. Merely because I actually have read his Magnum Opus doesnt make me a Keynesian any more than reading Das Kapital makes me a Marxist. Or Ricardo a Ricardian.

I am a Hamiltonian, however.

Apparently you are not aware what conservative means either.
Or that Liberals were once those concerned about freedom and Liberty while conservatives fought for Divine Right of Kings. But what can be expected from one who kisses Slaver Traitor butt?

[wasp69]

Dear waspie I am no Keynesian. Merely because I actually have read his Magnum Opus doesnt make me a Keynesian any more than reading Das Kapital makes me a Marxist. Or Ricardo a Ricardian.

Dear bendoverandshakeit, merely reading does not make a follower as you point out. However, reading and praising the work while claiming to not be a follower further cements you as the fraud you are.

I am a Hamiltonian, however.

From your praise of his policies of large, life appointed, centralized government theory there really is no doubt.

Apparently you are not aware what conservative means either.

Yes, I am very aware of the literal definitions of both of those words. I am also aware of the political reality that was set forth in the 60's and 70's. In America, the "conservatives" are the "old guard" that want to preserve liberty, freedom, and the rights of the States over the creeping Socialistic tendencies that we see today. The "liberals" are the ex-hippies and closet communists that want to take us away from our founding principles. To suggest otherwise is to use the liberal tactic of redefining words. By Mr. Zak's own definition, you and he are on the wrong forum.

But what can be expected from one who kisses Slaver Traitor butt?

Oooohhhh! Aren't you clever! Did you think that cute little cheapshot up all by yourself? Should I expect better from someone who preaches Republican but posts like a New Deal Democrat?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Most of those who blabber about the Evils of Keynesianism have neither read his work nor understand what it was about. Keynes, like many Englishmen, was a marvelous writer and there is little that is NOT orthodox in his early writings. He was one who tried to explain economic activity (or lack) when Classical Theory could not. Keynes was essentially a Classical Economist. I can praise many works without being a fraud or a follower. Even Das Kapital has things of value in it.

When Hamilton was in the government IT WAS TINY (government revenues were about $5 per American.) About the only part he wanted to grow was the Military. Only those with no knowledge of the man or his policies could claim he was for BIG government. He was definitely for a government strong enough to protect the Union from enemies foreign and domestic. State governments were the BIG governments and, in the South, totally devoted to maintaining the Reign of Terror of the Slavers.

Nor was he for "life appointments," except for judges, though he would have liked Washington to serve for life. Even you can't claim he wished Adams or Jefferson to serve for life. It is obvious you know NOTHING about Hamilton's beliefs. Why don't you read Hendrickson, Morris, Mitchell, Scractner, Lodge, MacDonald, or even Flexner, Brookheiser or Alexander's biographies of him before you continue to embarrass yourself?

Conservatives have nothing to do with "states' rights" that was the concern of reactionary racists, not conservatives. A conservative does not want to change things, those since Reagan have wanted to change MANY things. It is the "liberals" of today who want to see the status quo maintained and who are afraid of change not conservatives. Our Founding Fathers were NOT conservatives they sided with England. I refuse to accept the labels the RATmedia has placed upon me.

[GOPcapitalist]

It is obvious you know NOTHING about Hamilton's beliefs.

...and that comes straight from Mr. "Hamilton's protectionism was not protectionist and his monarchism not monarchist" himself. If anything, fake-it, you above all others have demonstrated that you could not recognize, understand, or even possess the ability to accurately reproduce Hamilton's beliefs AS HE WROTE THEM if they were stapled to your own forehead. Thus a word of advice is in order for your attempts to critique the same of others: don't try to pick a speck out of somebody else's eye when you've got a log sticking out of your own.

Why don't you read Hendrickson, Morris, Mitchell, Scractner, Lodge, MacDonald, or even Flexner, Brookheiser or Alexander's biographies of him before you continue to embarrass yourself?

I have a better idea. Why don't YOU try reading the actual text of any one of those biographies, or even better the actual words from Hamilton's own hand, rather than simply spouting off your own bizarre economic beliefs while simultaneously trying to assign them to another despite that attribution's wholly gratuitous and unsubstantiated nature.

[thatdewd]

Your claims about their beliefs are LIES.

He posted THEIR OWN WORDS, so it would seem that you are the liar. Again.

[thatdewd]

State governments were the BIG governments and, in the South, totally devoted to maintaining the Reign of Terror of the Slavers.

"When Hamilton was in the government", most Northern States were still Slave States, ESPECIALLY HIS. Slavery was not abolished in Hamilton's New York until 1827 (23 years after he was dispatched by Burr), and then only for slaves born before 1799. All the slaves born between 1799 and the passage of the 1827 law were still held under "conditional" slavery. Northern slaver slavocrats and their slavocratic slavism, oh my.

[Who is John Galt?]

Excellent post! (And it's great to hear from you! Sorry I'm late replying - my modem has been a bit 'under the weather!' ;>)