Skip to comments.Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic
Posted on 10/20/2003 4:53:35 PM PDT by Jim RobinsonEdited on 10/20/2003 8:39:45 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I happen to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst presidents in our nation's history. Corruption, government abuse, treason and daily scandal were the norm under their rule. Bill is a useful idiot who can't keep his mouth shut or his zipper up and Hillary is an America hating godless communist power monger. These are my personal opinions.
Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions still wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over the Democrat Party, the socialist movement and the national press. Their goals are to completely eliminate our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc., and these are just for starters.
I believe the overall goal of their movement is to completely do away with the U.S. Constitution and in its place, install socialist/totalitarian rule over America. Furthermore, I believe they wish to do away with our national sovereignty altogether and subject America to domination by the U.N. and other world bodies.
Now you may call me a nutcase if you wish, but that's the way I see it. I believe that in the last century, FDR, LBJ, RMN, Carter, Clinton, et al, successfully introduced many socialist programs into our government and our way of life and with the help of the media and atheist institutions like the ACLU began systematically destroying the fabric of our society. In the process, they've moved both of our major political parties way over to the left. They (the liberals/marxists/socialists) have almost completely taken over all of our government institutions and agencies, the judiciary, the press, the Universities, our education systems, our charities, even our churches.
I believe that as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their like minded socialist minions have any influence or power over the government or either of the two major political parties, our nation and all of our freedoms are in extreme danger.
Free Republic was created in 1996 as a place where liberty-minded individuals could gather and share the news and discuss the Clinton scandals and other government abuses. I had hoped that the truth of the Clinton corruption would come out in time to prevent his re-election in 1996. Didn't happen. So we moved on. If we couldn't block his re-election, well, perhaps we could help with his impeachment. He was impeached, but we could not remove him.
So next, we decide to do all in our power to ensure that his second in command does not get to the Whitehouse. Even though GWB was not my first choice, once he won the Republican nomination, most of us rallied behind him and fought like the dickens to get him elected. Then we fought again to block the attempted Gore coup d'etat. Our Free Republic chapters mobilized all across the nation and there were thousands of rallies and protests in hundreds of cities objecting loudly to Gore's attempted takeover.
Then we all thanked God when Bush was finally declared the winner and off to Washington we went to celebrate at the Free Republic George W. Bush Inaugural Ball (I).
Then we all thank God again when after the cowardly attack on our nation by a gang of murderous international terrorists we realize how close we were to complete collapse and national destruction had the socialist U.N. loving Al Gore been in charge. Thank God for President Bush!
And I haven't even mentioned how evil I truly believe the official Democrat Party platform is. Here's a partial laundry list of what the Democrat Party supports and promotes: abortion; homosexuality; feminaziism; environmentalism; government control over every aspect of our lives and society; socialized health care; disarmament of the American people; subjugation of the U.S. to the U.N.; the complete elimination of our national sovereignty; complete destruction of our basic traditional family unit; loss of personal freedoms and individual liberty. In other words, complete destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and our American way of life.
I came to the conclusion several years ago that there is no way this republic can survive if we allow the Democrat Party to maintain control over our government and other institutions. If America is to survive as we know it, Bill and Hillary Clinton and all the current democrat/socialist power mongers who share their philosophy and visions for a socialist America and socialist world must be soundly rejected and defeated at the polls.
And not just at the presidential level. They must be rejected and removed from both houses of Congress and from our State houses and local legislatures. For example, if we cannot remove them from the Senate, then there is no hope for reestablishing a judiciary built on the original intent of the Constitution and the rule-of-law. The liberals and socialists must be rooted out of our congress and our judiciary. Our free republic, our freedom and even liberty itself depends on it.
Just my humble opinion and why I act the way I do. I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy.
Futhermore, I believe wholeheartedly in the original intent of our Founding Fathers and in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
God gave us these unalienable rights and they can never be taken from us by man or government. And we are ALL to be treated justly and equally under the law.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Yes, the Founders established a government and set forth the plan for us to govern ourselves.
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The government has become destructive to these ends. One of the main purposes of our government is to defend, preserve and protect our liberty. It has been doing just the opposite. Therefore, it is our right and duty to alter or abolish it. I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party.
The point is personal conduct, and each is the abiter of their own.
No board of review necessary, no compulsion. Wouldn't really be republican, then, would it?
At it's most basic level, this country is a democratic republic to give each a voice, while avoiding the potential for a tyranny of a majority. Simple democracy lends itself to mob rule when swept up with the passions of the moment.
Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner, and calling others on it when they do so. That seems like appropriately republican behavior to me.
How about you?
Where exactly did I claim it's not there?
My question had more to do with elected politicians' accountability than with an individual voter's accountability.
I agree that a voter is accountable when he votes, but that's not the full extent of his responsibility. If it were, a politician voted into office could essentially enact whatever policy he'd like, even if it goes against the wishes of his constituents, because hey, he got the vote, right?
It's is the voter's responsibility to hold the elected official accountable for his actions. For instance, if a Republican we voted into office began to support tax and spending increases or other leftist agenda, would we not write and call in voicing our opposition? If we didn't, we'd be supporting political fiefdom.
I'm for it! So where do we start? :-)
P. S. While Ron Paul is an unbending fiscal conservative, I'd still hesitate to vote for him for President, largely because of his anti-war stance.
Without your vision, drive, and determination, Gore would be president, and we would all be learning Islam.
The political activism you call for must actualy result in something beyond self-congratualtions, and by wielding the power of party (a party transformed to a large part, but not a perfect part) we could actually have real reform.
I, also, long for the days when the fight against the factionalism of Clintonism united us all in common purpose, but time doesn't stand still. It made for an interesting and varied fellowship, didn't it?
In your call to "work for the prize" we must all examine ourselves. Lord knows, I've tried and I hope it sometimes shows. I posted long ago:
Rant cannot restore the Republic; Party can. Each of us should examine where we as individual actors in the restoration of constituional deliberative democracy are limited by ideology or craven pragmatism. Let us compete amongst ourselves by showing who can post their Battle Flag higher up the slope of the New Left's Little Round Top. Put down your swords when speaking to your brothers and sisters.I will grant that you always make the effort to make the arguement, and for that I applaud your fairness. But I have always seen the prudent course to be the capture of the Republican Party along with a reinterpretation of its vision along conservative principles.
In that journey I never feel less than enriched by your contributions. The stew must have its bay leaf, I always say.
Unfortunately, I see no evidence of this.
Party is eroding Republic yet further.
But I would hold that the current Republican Party is transforming to a much less dangerous animal and this site is a small reason why. Incrementalism can be transitory damage if the pressure is kept on the subject.
Remember, I said "can" and not "has". There is much left to do whichever course one choses.
Jim, some time back, has clearly made his choice and I doubt that he will become complacent or too compliant in his association with this vehicle. Others, may, and have, but he seems still as independent in thought as ever.
That's in the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution.
I'm sorry it seems to have upset you, but he was quite correct in saying that we are not a democracy, and the democracy (absent the restraint on mob rule provided by the rights of individuals) is absolutely and objectively evil.
The United States is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, administered by democratic means. The Constitution of the United States, is supposed to place limits upon the power of the majority, based on the inalienable rights of the constituent members of the republic.
There is nothing inherently good about democracy at all. It is a tool. A means to an end.. which can be used for good, or for evil. The inherent good is liberty, and respect for individual rights.
If democracy is limited such that it universally upholds the rights of individuals, and produces a society where people are free to choose their own peaceful path, it is a force for good.
If democracy is used (as it is all too often used today) to subjugate the rights of individuals in the name of socialism, false civil rights, protection from ourselves, and nanny-statism... then it is a force for evil.
Unfortunately it is people like yourself, who are woefully confused as to the nature of good and evil in government, and who assert democracy as an inherent good in itself, who are destroying the notions of rights and liberty, and aiding the progression toward our inevitable doom.
Consensus and compromise to the "democrat" leaders means bending over and taking whatever they say. It means total and complete capitulation to their agenda. No thanks.
Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but what seems to be the problem here is semantics.
If you want to get wrapped up around the axle over semantics, that's fine with me. But I think there was a very good reason (as expounded in the continental congress debates) that the founding fathers specifically eschewed the use of the word "democracy" in our founding documents. If you want to equate the representative republican form of government and "For the people, of the people, and by the people" to mean "democracy" that is your prerogative, but many of us will continue to recognize the distinction and prefer a republic over a democracy.
To quote Jim, "I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. ... I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party."
I'll not try to put words in Jim's mouth, but I guess he is proposing not the elimination of the Democrat Party so that only the GOP remains, but rather the destruction of the far left leadership of the democrat party through activism at the polls and in educating the voters of its true agenda. If successful, the GOP would become dominant, but the democrat party would have to move back toward the center and return to American principles in order to maintain a two-party system, or be replaced by a new "third" party that would become the "second" party by default. After all, that's how the Republican Party came into being in the first place.