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]

lol, someone should post a pic of a dog running off with its tail between its legs. "YIP! YIP! YIP!"...

Here ya go!

[wasp69]

LOL! I was going to post practically the same thing last night. I actually feel embarrassed for the Wlat Brigade knowing that 'fakeit' is one of theirs.

What I can't understand is why "fakeit" would want to try and cannonize Grand Old Partisan as some kind of authority when all you really have to do is hit him with a few documented facts and he slinks away name calling. Then again.......

[wasp69]

Republicans appreciate my work to expose the evils committed by Democrats and their neo-Confederate collaborators.

Do they know how quickly you run off calling names when hit with the most basic, and easy to find documented historical fact?

[wasp69]

Hmmmm, except for the 'elected' bit sounds quite a bit like England's system of government with the higher offices serving for life. But you keep preaching sunshine....

If there is still any doubt, let us not forget the following, also from Madison's notes on the Convention:

Monday June 18, 1787.
(Hamilton)the British Govt. was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America.

(Hamilton)As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles. Was not this giving up the merits of the question: for can there be a good Govt. without a good Executive. The English model was the only good one on this subject. The Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad-and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home.

Nope, no call for any type of "monarch", "king", or anything like that at all. < /sarcasm >

I don't know about you, billbears, but if I had been there and heard that fall out of Hamilton's sewer after fighting the very same government he wanted emulated, Aaron Burr would have had a much different place in history.

[4CJ]

In Federalist #78, Hamilton wrote about THE 'fundamental principle of republican government', which 'admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.'

And in the Virginia ratification debates, one James Madison stated this, 'An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence.'

John Marshall reiterated that the powers can be resumed by the states, '[w]e are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.'

Marshall went further, stating that 'the people hold all powers in their own hands, and delegate them cautiously, for short periods, to their servants.' Not a perpetual delegation.

[4CJ]

Hamilton was a monarchist seeking to destroy the state governments:

Dr. JOHNSON. On a comparison of the two plans which had been proposed from Virginia and New Jersey, it appeared that the peculiarity which characterized the latter was its being calculated to preserve the individuality of the states. The plan from Virginia did not profess to destroy this individuality altogether, but was charged with such a tendency. One gentleman alone, (Col. Hamilton,) in his animadversions on the plan of New Jersey, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the state governments.
Elliot's Debates Vol. V, p. 220.

[stand watie]

!!!!!!

scalawags deserve whatever they get.

there is nothing lower than a scalawag. NOTHING!

free dixie,sw

[wasp69]

Did you actually purchase this guy's mental vomit?

[wasp69]

Horace Greeley and Frederick Douglass were misinformed. Show me one instance, among the tens of thousands of rebel prisoners in Union camps, of a black rebel POW.

Wow, what a challenge! Can I play too?

Vernon R. Padgett, Ph.D.

Strong evidence against the thesis that blacks were “forced to fight” is found in the Tennessee Colored Man’s Pension Applications (TCMPA). Some 285 black Tennesseans filed for these pensions during the 1920s and 1930s. Applicants were not required to describe their combat experience, but many did so anyway. In these descriptions, 17 stated that Union forces captured them. Of those, 6 escaped back to the South (Rollins, 1994, page 81).

Easily found, documented, unhidden historical fact will be the bane of your existance until you are intelluctually honest enough to acknowledge it.

[wasp69]

Well said, safisoft, well said.

I have my family landing here in Maryland in 1661, fighting with Washington's Army from Caroline County (VA), defending South Carolina in 1861, liberating France in 1918, killing Japanese in 1944, killing Chinese and North Koreans in 1952, holding the line against communism in Vietnam, liberating Kuwait in 1991, and liberating Iraq in 2003.

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?

[safisoft]

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?

The aforementioned poster is one of the rudest loudmouths I have ever encountered here. Any one who wants to be known among "peers" with a name that includes "shutup" in it has definite problems. Everytime I read the screen name, I am reminded of the rapist who screams this at his victims.

[wasp69]

I was actually referring to GOP. Did you click on the link to read what he posted?

[nolu chan]

Yes, I actually purchased the book, took it to a mountaintop to meditate, and found the following true enlightenment which also serves as a Wlatian translation table.

[quoting from B2B, Michael Zak, 3 Ed., 2003, p. 228] [nc 7/25/2003 Link]

We Republicans place ourselves at another disadvantage in the battle of ideas by ripping from socialists a label which describes them so well. Opponents of progress are those who want to conserve the age-old rule of the few over the many and the cultural stagnation this entails. Socialists are the true conservatives.[1] Republicans try without success to affix this conservative label properly to our Party, using as adhesive such adjectives as "dynamic" or "compassionate" or "progressive." Trouble is, though our Republican Party definitely is dynamic and compassionate and progressive,[2] conservative it is not[3].

[justshutupandtakeit 7/25/2003 Link]
To: nolu chan

That statement is true. It is the liberal program which has become conservative,[4] republicans are trying to change that. Forces which fight against change are the conservative ones in standard verbiage.

What we consider conservative are the ideals of classical liberalism.[5]

Conventional political terminology has become confused and less useful. Whig and Tory is about as appropriate.

Maybe we should start thinking about coming up with new terms that are more accurate.

[nc 7/25/2003 Link]

Exam Time:

[1] Conservatives are really Socialists

[2] Republicans are really Progressives

[3] Republicans are not really Conservatives

[4] Liberals are really Conservatives

[5] Conservatives are Classical Liberals

[wasp69]

Yes, I actually purchased the book, took it to a mountaintop to meditate, and found the following true enlightenment which also serves as a Wlatian translation table.

I personally wouldn't give this revisionist historian and pseudo patriot a dime. I'm raising 5 children on an enlisted man's pay and I try not to waste it on something that would make me want to scrub out my brain with Ajax.

With that said, I would have to say that it is the most convuluted political theory that I have ever heard. The political argument of who was "conservative" and who was "liberal" was set in stone in the 60's and 70's. "Conservatives" are those wanting to guard the "old ways" of limited government and Constitutional values and "liberals" are those who want to affect change to usher in socialism. Why it is Mr. Z feels the need to redefine everything is beyond me.

Then again, since he has a Keynesian stumping for him, maybe it is more clear than I imagined....

[thatdewd]

...17 stated that Union forces captured them.

GOPart will probably just say that they were "mistaken", after all, that would conflict with his book (the ultimate test of truth). I remember reading some Mississippi pension applications by black confederates which mention their being POWs. I'm sure the pension records of every Confederate State mention the same thing.

[wasp69]

GOPart will probably just say that they were "mistaken", after all, that would conflict with his book (the ultimate test of truth).

Nah, facts usually just cause this type of behavior. You are right, though. It is easy enough information to find (only took me 2 minutes), and I can tell you for a fact that the Tennessee records do annotate the Black Confederates.

Was the little dog picture to your liking?

[thatdewd]

"Do they know how quickly you run off calling names when hit with the most basic, and easy to find documented historical fact?

LOL, well, what can we expect from a former State Department flunkie? His asinine blatherings probably made him fit right in with that bunch.

[thatdewd]

Was the little dog picture to your liking?

Most definitely, LOL.

[wasp69]

LOL, well, what can we expect from a former State Department flunkie? His asinine blatherings probably made him fit right in with that bunch.

Huh?!?

[thatdewd]

Huh?!?

Yep, GOPart used to work for the State Department. Five years, I think. The best thing that ever comes out of the State Department is the effluent in the sewer pipes...