Posted on 07/19/2007 8:52:30 AM PDT by BGHater
bump. Nice post.
The Birchers were reasonably read out of the conservative movement by Bill Buckley even when Mr. Welch was in his prime. When I met Mr. Welch at his Belmont HQ in the company of Scott Stanley in 1972, he seemed to me to be a very nice old gentleman who, while eccentric in his politics, would have made a wonderful neighbor. One cannot say the same for SOME of the Birchers out there in the boonies who were eccentric to an exquisite degree and utterly useless politically except as targets for the left if they were noticed at all. BTW, I have no problem regarding Eisenhower as Mr. Welch did in his Black Book.
You forgot about the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones and conspiracies sooooo secret that we do not even know their names. Take a stimulant for your memory and then a few tranquilizers and calm down. Check first under your bed, though. You can NEVER be toooooo sure!
Like all politicians are as pure as the driven snow ... none of them would want pure, naked power, now would they ?
You go ahead and trust your and your descendents futures to your international elitist masters. I’d prefer to trust in the Constitution and the government that enforces all being equal under the law.
SCOTUS has illicitly assumed the status of a perpetual constitutional convention without need of 3/4 of the states ratifying its decisions distorting the constitution.
Franklin, asked by an old lady on the Philadelphia streets what sort of government the FF were creating, said: "A republic, madame, if you can keep it." That suggests that he well expected what was to come.
The constitution was a noble experiment in binding flesh and blood politicians with shackles of words. It has not worked as well as hoped. We retain some but by no means all of what was provided by the FF and, as fallen men, we have reverted in other respects to the unwritten constitution (politicians' self interest trumping much that is deemed "inconvenient" in the words of the FF).
The rule of law is a largely dead issue when it clashes with the will of officeholders. It began dying when CJ John Marshall decided that SCOTUS had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
It continued dying when Abraham Lincoln, aided and abetted by other radicals and by Generals like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan illicitly attacked and invaded states that had chosen to leave the Union as was clearly their Tenth Amendment right.
It continued dying when, after the Confederacy and its people were assaulted, raped, murdered and pillaged on the blatantly nonsensical pretense that a state that had joined the Union could not leave, those same eleven states were then "required" to ratify Amendments 13, 14 and 15 as a "condition" of their "re-admission" to the Union and looted for another eleven years under military "reconstruction."
Need I detail the rise of the largely (entirely?) unconstitutional welfare state which seems to have the aura of permanence about it if we depend upon either elections or SCOTUS to smell the coffee? Or many other unconstitutional depredations?
So, forgive me if I am skeptical of the constitutional sacred virginity theorizing and philosophizing of paleoPaulie and his friends and their having a nervous breakdown over our fighting necessary wars with Congressional authorizations of force without being fussy enough and dainty enough to had the specific words "Declaration of War" in headlines at the top of the resolution, apparently because the UN Charter (which we idiotically signed off on so many years ago and ought to abrogate immediately if not sooner) purports to outlaw war. PaleoPaulie and the moonbats are ignoring 220 years of American history as well as the Supremacy clause of Article VI.
While you are preening as a "constitutionalist", you might want to review the history of its ratification. Speaking of elites, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and their Federalist cronies were very upset that the Articles of Confederation did not grant the nation's social and financial elite all the power they craved to order the economy to their interest and liking.
Under the pretense of wanting to devise rules for the navigation of the Potomac River, they held two conferences (at Annapolis and at Mount Vernon) at which they actually plotted the demise of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution which would give them, for example, the power to levy taxes rather than request money from the states.
The constitutional convention was called and the constitution drafted. However, the convention had no power to do anything but propose changes to the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, any change whether in the nature of an amendment or by replacing the Articles with a new constitution REQUIRED the UNANIMOUS approval of the states. Such approval was quite unlikely and the FF decided to provide that ratification by nine states would make the constitution the new governing document for them. When the ninth state had ratified the new and illegal constitution, the Articles of Confederation were dead as a practical matter. Soon enough thereafter, federal troops were suppressing Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and a Federalist Congress was busily passing sin taxes (on such as whiskey) to make the modest folk pay the bills run up by the elites.
Fortunately for the Republic, the Federalists overplayed their elitist hand and were eliminated from the White House and from control of Congress, both permanently, in reasonably short order. Unfortunately, Jon Marshall was left behind by vengeful elites as SCOTUS Chief Justice to invent centralized power theories undreamed of by the FF such as the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
I despise such elitists at least as much as the next guy but I do not kid myself that paleoPaulie has a clue or would defend anything, much less our country, with any talent whatsoever. The man is an eccentric loon. Nor do I think the United States is waiting to be delivered from its burdens by the John Birch Society, by libertoonians generally, or by Objectivists in particular and we are certainly not so naive as to pine for an eager Al Qaeda apologist like paleoPaulie to run our foreign policy or command our troops.
I live in the real world.
Sorry about you.
The French Revolution, Robespierre, the guillotine and the Directory were good examples of gummint by temper tantrum and why such sorts of gummint are not considered yummy in actually conservative circles.
You can reserve the right to call the moon a ball of limberger cheese but it will not make it a ball of limberger cheese.
Well, hell...I don't know. I'm in Iraq.
Y'know, more people are killed by shootings in DC than in Baghdad.
I say we withdraw from DC. It's hopeless. Let's throw in the towel.
And I'd like a timetable, please.
Aw, g’wan. I was just having some fun. Friends Of Ron are known for an ebullient optimism and good cheer. Try it some time.
“Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty.“
“These are more fallacious arguements.”
Two words my friend: bovine feces. If you don’t take the constitution seriously then you can’t claim to be a “conservative”. “Neo-conman” maybe but “conservative” no. And yes if the constitution is ignored it becomes disempowered.
Simply yelling “wrong” doesn’t cut it for a rational argument. At least explain your reasoning please. Did you mean instead that the constitution is NOT the safeguard of our liberty?
1) More of the same
2) Socialism (aka Communism Lite)
3) Ron Paul
-----------------------------------------------
At the risk of being "purged", allow me to say that I personally am taking a closer look at Ron Paul's campaign.
One of my major concerns though is that this next election we will need to elect a leader and not a consensus seeker like George Bush and I have yet seen anyone who fits the bill.
“Simply yelling “wrong” doesn’t cut it for a rational argument. At least explain your reasoning please. “
Are you responding to the correct post? These arguements don’t relate to my post.
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.