Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[JFC]

I agree with you on all statements. This past weekend my church was visited by a lobying group from Washington. I was very upset after hearing them talk and show their bias against the Republicans and President Bush. We did further research on the group and their main issue is seperation of church and state, yet they are very much inline with groups I would never want to be associated with. I do not know what is happening in our country, but I see a shift with many of my christian church members to the left. It upsets me, yet I do not know what I can do to stop this action.

[finnman69]

I love my country dearly and do not wish to see it destroyed by any enemy, foreign or domestic, and this includes terrorists, socialists, communists, anarchists, nazis, liberals, democrats or anyone else.

You forgot libertarians and head in the sand conservatives.

[Taxman]

I, too, believe that "America is best served by two vigorous political parties which disagree with each other."

Would it not be interesting if, instead of promising Socialism (Democrat Party) or socialism (Republican Party), both parties were arguing about which one was best equipped to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

BTW, the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist Bastards who pass themselves off as "Democrats" are evil. If you do not believe that, check your premises. They do not "make nice;" never have, never will, and it is foolish to think otherwise.

They are our enemies, and they seek to destroy the United States and all it stands for. Pure and simple.

[meyer]

I happen to believe that, while some of us may loathe the Democratic party, America is best served by two vigorous political parties which disagree with each other. Not to the point of divisiveness: Jim's post shows no interest in working with Democrats to improve America -- but to the point where we can sit down and think rationally about what each other is saying. Otherwise, we won't be heard, and we can't consider their thinking in making sure our policies are sufficiently robust. America NEEDS us to understand each other. In the same way that businesses improve through strong competition, we need the Democrats. If they go away, we will grow complacent.

I don't think Jim is arguing against a 2 party system here. Yes, there always needs to be dissention as it is healthy. But there are areas that are off limits to our elected officials and to the judicial branch and those areas are roped off by that fragile document called the constitution. It is supposed to be absolute, but that is no longer the case. And that is the crux of this country's problems - an activist judicial branch has weasel-worded its way around the constitution and is producing the exact tyranny that the constitution was written to prevent.

Besides, they are not Satan: they are our fellow Americans. And anyone who thinks disagreement originated in this generation hasn't spent enough time reading about the debates and discussion which led to our constitution and its bill of rights.

I'll agree that most people that vote democrat aren't Satan - they are simply either uninformed or enjoying the free ride that their democratic leaders provide at someone else's expense. But the leadership - the Hitlery's, the Schumers, the Kennedy's, they are as close to Satan as one can humanly get without growing a pointy pitch-forked tail. They are evil. They are epitome of abuse of power and are exactly the type of people from which the constitution was designed to protect us ordinary folks.

[meyer]

You forgot libertarians and head in the sand conservatives.

And those pesky power-hungry authoritarians. :)

[yoe]

Well said! Bravo!

Free Republic Lexicon

Liberal = Socialist
Suicide Bomber = Murderer
”Immigrant” = illegal alien = law breaker

Correct the media buzz words when and where ever you can and add to this list.

[roses of sharon]

Jim,

Your ire is misplaced.

Peter, Dan, and Tom, are the Constitution's enemy.

For it is from these 3 men, that Americans still get 70% of their information about government. Don't be fooled by their supposed falling ratings, they still receive and are believed by the majority of the public.

As you know it is a small % of people on either side, who care and read and watch many forms of media.

The Network "News" programs are by far the most dangerous for this county. And our pols make ALL decisions according to how it will be "played".

Our energies, and yours, must be focused on these 3 propaganda information departments.

The leftists would be nowhere, but for the networks.

They must be completely discredited and defeated.

How about starting with journalistic "plants" in their newsrooms, to expose them?

It would be a start on fighting a war on the homefront.

Any takers?

[Pilly]

Immigrant = law breaker? Well, I've never been fond of Henry Kissinger, but that reason hadn't occurred to me.

[Paulus Invictus]

Thanks for your wonderfully clear statement, Jim! I agree with you 100% and fully support your actions and your important web site. I also believe that all Freepers should do all we can to make sure the disgusting Clintons do not prevail and that the RATS and their evil ideology are no longer a threat to the Republic.

[Sabertooth]

By 'normal people, I'm assuming you mean "Sheep" or "Cattle" who will allow themselves to be herded or stampeded in whichever direction thier masters want them to go, right?

No, if you want a pure democracy, I'd recommend that you should be the one to leave - I'll stick with prefering a constitutional republic, thanks. That way my rights as an individual won't be at the mercy of the "normal people".

OK, a question for you:

Should our personal interactions reflect these (small "r") republican ideals?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, I can't speak for ALL Constitutional Republics, but a perfect example would be how we elect a president. Sure, everyone votes, however in this country we don't vote directly for President - it's not a case of "The one with the majority of the votes wins", but we go through the "Electoral College" instead - for the very reason that the smaller states would be subject to the "tyranny of the larger states" if we didn't.

If we were a pure democracy, we'd state our preference for president and the most votes would win. That is simply not the case in our republic.

Am I making sense, or are people still confused?

[wimpycat]

I'm not confused, Chad. Your ideas make perfect sense, and I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the subject.

Now, excuse me while I go find a hankie to wipe off my nose.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Should our personal interactions reflect these (small "r") republican ideals?

What do you mean by that? Provide an example. :0)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, thanks Wimpycat ;0)

[RoseofTexas]

God bless you, Mr. Ribinson and Free Republic!! THANK GOD FOR THE FREEDOMS TO WORSHIP AND FREEDOM TO EXPRESS OUR HEART FELT TRUTHS! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!

[Nataku X]

LibertyPost is where many of the banned freepers and FR malcontents gather (like BadJoe and Eschoir). We're not allowed to post the link to LibertyPost but search for LibertyPost on any search engine and you'll find it. It's full of unhappy and angry ex-Freepers and much of their time is spent bashing FreeRepublic.

[PjhCPA]

I hardly ever post, but for this I must say: I don't give a rats @ss what anyone else says - you're doing a fantastic job - keep up the good work!!!

[Modernman]

Well, I can't speak for ALL Constitutional Republics, but a perfect example would be how we elect a president. Sure, everyone votes, however in this country we don't vote directly for President

That's an interesting point. However, I don't think getting rid of the electoral college would make our government a democracy, rather than a republic. For example, France bills itself a republic, but they elect their president directly. On the other hand, the UK doesn't elect their Prime Minister directly- he is chosen by his party and the Prime Minister can actually change without any involvement of the electorate (such as the case where Margaret Thatcher stepped down in the midde of a term and was replaced by John Major), but the UK is not technically a republic.

Maybe we're just arguing definitions here. As a quick guide, Black's law dictionary defines a Democracy as:

That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

A Republican form of government is defined as:

A government by representatives chosen by the people.

It would seem that the US falls under both definitions.

[Protagoras]

I think the problem a lot of Freepers have is that they confuse "Democracy" with "mob rule."

The correct term is ochlocracy.

[sinclair]

Proud to be associated with Free Republic.