Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Restorationists vs Conservatives and Libertarians
Self | 12/23/01 | David Wright

Posted on 12/23/2001 7:32:51 PM PST by dcwusmc

I am a RESTORATIONIST and I thank FReeper CHUCKSTER for the use of the term. I came to this position as a libertarian but others have come to it via conservatism and liberalism. At its essence the Restorationist philosophy holds that the United States live as part of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and that we have strayed FAR from our Constitutional roots. We hold that this situation is untenable to our survival as a nation and that we must restore our Constitution as the SUPREME law of the land. We must go back to our roots or we will DIE as a free nation.

This is NOT an issue of the WOD, though I still oppose it on Constitutional grounds. It is NOT an issue on RKBA though I support it unconditionally on Constitutional grounds. It is an issue of National SURVIVAL.

For those of you who are in favor of the WOD, let's agree that we need to get our Constitution restored FIRST, then we can see if the WOD can ever be Constitutional. First things FIRST, in other words. We must stop politicians and bureaucraps of ALL persuasions from using the Constitution as toilet paper. Hence RESTORATIONIST.

Your comments and suggestions are invited.


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: vcrlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-259 next last
To: expositor
I went back over all your posts looking for what real damage has been done to living persons in the Terratory of North Dakota, and I find none mentioned: no loss of wealth or property ; other than the omission itself, which is correctable, you mention no actual harm done to any person or group of persons--malicious or accidental. Who has been wronged such that a monetary remedy would be rendered by a civil court?
101 posted on 12/23/2001 10:35:26 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
For me Mud, I am a staunch Republican. But I am very concerned how far to the left way too many in MY party have gone. Letting Clinton get away with Treason and trying to get along with those stomping on the Constitution is a big concern.
My prayer is that the Republican party see's a concern for our Constitution and makes sure they do not trample on it, change it in any way.

If Americans stay silent like they are about Clinton and you and I have seen it on here at FR...Republicans wanting to move on in regards to the treason Clinton did, then they will also say move on when it means taking our rights away.

Just one request, please my friend , and you are my good friend Mud, do NOT put in the TO part with Inspector Harry Callahan. Anyone that thinks we did not land on the moon has no credibility.

Thanks Mud. God Bless Bush and I pray for his wisdom and safety everyday.

102 posted on 12/23/2001 10:35:43 PM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
You know that I'm just not whistling "Dixie." I have read your profile and wish you good luck on your case! Indeed, we have corruption "from within" and it is allowed mainly because the majority of our adults do not know how to protect themselves from even corrupt public officials, among them corrupt judges!

I, too, will be listing a litany of judges who "looked the other way" and in the process committed misprision of treason and treason itself. See Title 18, Section 2381, Note 16 of the U.S. Code that indicates that a conspiracy to prevent the enforcement of a statute of the United States is a conspiracy to commit treason.

And we have FReepers who dust this off? Perhaps those are the first ones that should get instruction, according to the purpose of this thread, which I believe shows how lightly some take serious violations...and I DO think that when a state is not a state by failing to meet the requirements for statehood, that IS worthy of correction.

103 posted on 12/23/2001 10:37:58 PM PST by expositor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Thanks for your post my friend.
104 posted on 12/23/2001 10:43:21 PM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Well presented, however, unless and until ALL Americans vote and as long as politicians play to people's emotions, there will be no restoration of our freedom. People are willing to give up their liberty for a false sense of security. They are willing to give up their liberty and put their trust in people they don't know (politicians).
As long as they are made to "feel good" about a given issue, they are willing to overlook the diversions that are occurring around them (the so-called war).

As long as the media is controlled by Anti-Americans, there isn't a snow balls chance of restoration.
As long as Americans do nothing about political correctness, there will be no restoration
As long as we continue to let communists/socialists control our school systems, there will be no restoration.
As long as politicians pit us against each other, i,e,; race, rich vs poor, male vs female there will be no restoration. Here's something I wrote in 1996. BTW, don't for a moment think I am negative because I put my faith in Yashua Messiah and not man.

Division, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication
(A Recipe For Declining Nations)

Divide mankind with hate
Add race to the bait
Subtract good will and piety
Multiply the problems of society

Divide the people by class
Add the errors of the past
Subtract efforts to rectify
Multiply the lies

Divide people by lies
Add promises of pie in the sky
Subtract God from our schools
Multiply the number of fools

Divide people by gender
Add abortion to the blender
Subtract murder from the equation
Multiply a declining nation

Divide people by differences
Add the negative inferences
Subtract the need for honor
Multiply a nation that's a goner

Divide the children from parents
Add philosophies that are errant
Subtract parental powers
Multiply a nation that cowers

Divide us by lot
Add anything that's hot
Subtract everything that's not
Multiply the declining rot

If this blessed nation you'd fix
put Yahweh and Honor into the mix
If we are to save this nation
add prayer into the equation

Copyright © 1999 By John J. Lindsay. All Rights Reserved
July 21, 1996

105 posted on 12/23/2001 10:43:52 PM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davidosborne;Mudboy Slim
David you said......"I join you in your frustrations... The best way to "heal" the GOP is from the inside out.. and I think FReepers are the cure not the bandage.."

I agree so much, it is worth fighting for and I will never give up.

106 posted on 12/23/2001 10:45:26 PM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: expositor
Malfeasance, malfeasance: yeah...I'll go there.

Treason? Misprison of Treason? What was the motive? What machinations against the people resulted in what wrong?

I BEG to understand what all the fuss, above correction of what you said was innocent error almost one-hundred years ago, is about. Humor me: put in a nutshell.

If you can't get me aboard, how can you hope to convince a judge or jury of some great crime?

You're rather recondite and cryptic...you oughtta be a detective.

107 posted on 12/23/2001 10:48:45 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
If necessary, I could supply you with a four-page SUMMARY of the "flaw" in the ND Constitution. I don't think you are that interested, frankly. But, if you read Reply 96 and my reply to "connectthedots" thereafter, you will find that others directly involved who can claim damages appreciate that there is a route to secure damages and the strongest is Hafer v. Melo 502 U.S. 21. I think I replied to her in Reply 103.

By the way, I am a paralegal who prepares documents for Federal court for attorneys, so you know from whence I speak.

108 posted on 12/23/2001 10:52:03 PM PST by expositor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: expositor
I acknowledge the flaw; no need to pelt me with that: I think I made myself clear.

But again you evade the substance of my query. You're a paralegal: lay upon me an example of one who has the standing of an aggrieved party by reason of whatever wrong-doing.

Are you under a gag order?

109 posted on 12/23/2001 10:57:27 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Treason? Misprison of Treason? What was the motive? What machinations against the people resulted in what wrong? I BEG to understand what all the fuss, above correction of what you said was innocent error almost one-hundred years ago, is about. Humor me: put in a nutshell.

You want it in a 'nutshell'? One word; "POWER". It is all about power.

For an bit of an extended explanation read Fredric Bastiat's The Law.

110 posted on 12/23/2001 11:02:43 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
I've heard it suggested that the best route toward restoration would be to nudge the GOP back towards it's roots. It might be the most practical, but it would involve risks that time may not allow for.

The most powerful method, IMO, would be for the governor of a state (any state) to pronounce those activities currently funded or controlled by the Feds that are deemed to be unconstitutional, as no longer legitimate, and as such, having no further effect on the people of that particular state.

This would get a lot of people's attention and any attempts by the Feds to 'blackmail' said state into compliance (witholding highway funds, etc.) could illustrate the unique relationship that has existed between the Fed and the States for some time and might cause people to consider having it re-evaluated.

111 posted on 12/23/2001 11:03:18 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Our messages are crossing; see Reply 108. You "BEG" to be informed, and imply that my evidence gathered over six years cannot stand a test in court; yet you expect me to explain the merits of the case on a chat thread such as this? I think we would be abusing the rules, and I don't wish to do that here. If you send me a private reply and indicate your mailing address, I would be happy to send you a summary of the facts.

In passing, I WAS a detective...with two boxtops off of Quaker Puffed Wheat and 10 cents from my Grandpa, I became a member of the Dick Tracy Secret Service Patrol in 1936. I then swore to keep secret the secrets of the Patrol, and I have a standing invitation to visit the Dick Tracy Museum in Illinois at any time. But, the problem of North Dakota statehood goes beyond the expertise of most Patrol members, if others are still alive. I'm 72, going on 73, but DO believe in heros like Dick Tracy who started a new way of going after criminals.

Lighten up and smell the flowers. I'm getting tired.

112 posted on 12/23/2001 11:05:11 PM PST by expositor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: expositor
First, if you're going to go accusing me of knowing nothing about what I'm talking about, at least have the sense to GET A CLUE FIRST. Don't say "read all my other inane posts". I DID read them, and, surprising as this may seem to a fanatic like yourself, I just didn't find them convincing. If you're going to talk to me about serious study of the Constitution, TRY DOING SOME FIRST! Don't you get snotty with me, because I can and will thrash anyone over any Constitutional issue you can name.

Now, with that little matter out of the way, would you care to tell me which of the original 13 states had clauses in their constitutions requiring the executive to swear to uphold the Constitution when they ratified the Constitution?

And, tell me exactly which provision of the federal Constitution requires state constitutions to require an oath to uphold the federal Constitution. Not directly requiring the officials to swear the oath, requiring the state constitutions to require it.

113 posted on 12/23/2001 11:05:25 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Read it.

Who did what to whom with what unlawful accretion of power?

Why so cryptic?

114 posted on 12/23/2001 11:06:24 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dasboot;Snow Bunny;expositor
dasboot,You are no better than a Nazi apologist. Read Fredric Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, assuming you have the intellectual capability of understanding a realtively straight-forward treatise on the dangers of government and those who occupy positions within it, and how most of them got there. You might also understand why our Constitutiona has the Second Amendment.
115 posted on 12/23/2001 11:12:24 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Nebulous.
116 posted on 12/23/2001 11:15:02 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
He's said nothing, on this thread at least, to deserve a comment like that. You owe him an apology.
117 posted on 12/23/2001 11:16:06 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Been there, read that.

I take umbrage at your epithet.

I seek a simple understanding of your collective beefs, and you and expositor get really defensive. Somethin' ain't right.

118 posted on 12/23/2001 11:22:34 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
knock it off.
119 posted on 12/23/2001 11:22:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc;Snow Bunny;expositor
YOu want a first project for VCR, of which I am one? Did you know that the United States Supreme Couret has NEVER ruled on the question of whether the "practice of law" is a basic constitutional right? Based on my research of the the constitution, and a number of USSC cases, I have concluded that the "practice of law" is a basic constitutional right and as such, there can be no law that infringes on the free excercise of a constitutional right once the franchise has been granted. Do you know the implications? It could literally put state bar associations and law schools out of business, at least in terms of bars associations to dominate and control state legislatures and the courts all across the nation. Just think of it; we could give the courts back to the control of the people as our nation's founders intended.

You may think I am a bit arrogant when I say this, but I am just the guy who could get it done, with a little support. Freepmail me if you want to know more.

120 posted on 12/23/2001 11:23:39 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-259 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson