Chuck Baldwin: Save the Republic

Chuck Baldwin’s latest writing criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments about “saving the planet” and instead suggests she should be trying to “save the Republic”.

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.” She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a “democracy.” That’s odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a “democracy” in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

Has anyone quoted the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Does it say, “And to the democracy for which it stands”? Or does it say, “And to the republic for which it stands”? Of course it says “republic.”

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got–a republic or monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the sixty-four million dollar question: Can we keep our republic? Can we keep our constitutional form of government? Can we keep our constitutionally protected liberties?

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison (“The Father of the U.S. Constitution”) said, “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America’s founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Continue reading.

20 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: Save the Republic

  1. G.E.

    Baldwin quotes the Pledge of Allegiance, written by an atheist-socialist and designed to instill blind obedience to the state? Wow.

    This is conservatism in denial.

    • We do not HAVE a republic to save.
    • We don’t have “constitutional government” to preserve.

    These things have been lost, and therefore cannot be “conserved.”

  2. darolew

    “Restore the Republic” or “Reclaim the Republic” would be more accurate battle cries.

  3. darolew

    By the way, G.E., the Pledge was not written by an “atheist-socialist”. It was written by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister. He was quite the devout Christian. (And an equally devout socialist.)

  4. G.E.

    I believe he was an atheist as well as a Christian minister — just as he was a devout socialist while still being a marketing-genius capitalist, inventing the Nazi pledge in order to better peddle his wares to the socialist school system.

    And THIS is a man Baldwin cites!

  5. RedPhillips

    ““Restore the Republic” or “Reclaim the Republic” would be more accurate battle cries.”

    I agree, but G.E. you have to cut people some slack. The history of the Pledge is not well known outside paleocon, paleolibertarian and neo-Confederate circles.

    Bellamy was a Baptist minister, but he was defrocked. I don’t know if it was because he actually ever embraced an unorthodox statement of faith, or if he just drifted so far into Social Gospel do-goodism that it became intolerable.

  6. Trent Hill Post author

    Darolew,

    Such things as facts needn’t stand in the way of GE’s belligerence. =)

    I agree with GE’s point though. “Restore the Republic” would be a more suitable statement. As for Baldwin’s statement about the Pledge of Allegiance–he doesnt hold it up to some high-standard,does he? All he says is that it says “To the republic for which it stands”–and it does,doesnt it? The fact that it was written by a socialist (who likely had much disdain for the idea of a republic) strengthens his point. Even the socialist, at the time of his writing the Pledge, recognized that our nation was a Republic–while few/no politicians do now.

  7. Trent Hill Post author

    “And THIS is a man Baldwin cites!”

    Is citing now synonymous with endorsing? If I cite George McGovern as a source for why the Vietnam War was wrong–am I now a leftist? GE,lay off of it.

    The fact is this–Baldwin wasnt writing this article for paleoconservatives or paleolibertarians–but for less educated folks.

  8. G.E.

    Maybe I’m wrong about him being an atheist. I thought I had read that somewhere, but I cannot find it now. If so, my bad.

  9. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    I believe he remained a devout christian throughout his life,but was defrocked for his socialist-rantings.

  10. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    We all get your point. But not every IS a constitutional scholar. Baldwin’s article appealed to them,even if it contained minor infractions.

    I ask again.
    ““And THIS is a man Baldwin cites!”

    Is citing now synonymous with endorsing? If I cite George McGovern as a source for why the Vietnam War was wrong–am I now a leftist? GE,lay off of it.”

  11. G.E.

    Citing is not synonymous with endorsing, but it is synonymous with lending the cited source legitimacy.

    George McGovern, a horrible socialist, was anti-war, and is credible in that regard.

    Bellamy and his pledge are NOT credible sources for defining the type of government we are supposed to have.

    Now if Baldwin had said, “Even this socialist knows we were supposed to have a republic,” as you did, that would be valid. But citing him as a credible authority on constitutional government is absurd.

  12. Trent Hill Post author

    Bellamy stated that our nation was a republic in hist statement.

    It is.

    No one denies this.

    So how is he NOT a credible source on this subject?

  13. Deran

    G.E. reminds me of the bolsheviks I knew as a lad; they too were all about denouncing anyone who veeered from their party line, anyone who was not politically correct in their Marxist Leninist worldview. G.E. is a bolshevik libertarian.

    And another thing, socialists come in many many flavors, most of us favor some form of republican and/or representative democracy. With as much direct democracy as is possible, but because no human is an island, societies can come together in a cooperative commonwealth/republic.

    Another amusing part of GE’s verbosity is his love of mixing socialist and fascist as his favored curses.

    And of course; the idea that libertarian socialism, or libertarian communism, historically predates libertarian capitalism as ideologies must give the poor lad no end of spasms and twitches.

  14. Steve LaBianca

    To read the foremost authority on the pledge of allegiance, see Rex Curry’s website – http://www.rexcurry.net

    BTW, Rex is a good friend of mine, and is a strong advocate of plumb-line libertarianism here in Tampa.

  15. G.E.

    Trent – Because it isn’t so just because he says it’s so. He’s citing him as an authority. Why not cite ME on the subject, or a drunken bum on the street? Why not cite a five-year-old child? He’s citing Bellamy, as the author of the heinous Nazi pledge, as if writing that horrible disgrace makes him an authority, which it doesn’t.

  16. Steve LaBianca

    Deran has posted an odd sort of diatribe.

    GE is in no way, shape or form, a socialist, or more accurately, collectivist.

    Additionally, just because there is documented evidence of a collectivist/anarchist/libertarian movement before a free market/individualist type, it does not follow that it is either a logical or rational set of beliefs.

    Collectivist anarchists are deluding themselves if they believe that collectivism is sustainable without the coercion of the state . . . an obvious oxymoron!

    Human nature is co-operative, but is not collectivist. When collectivism is forced at the point of a gun (the only way it can exist), the natural human motivation of self preservation and self interest is attempted to be overridden. Most, if not the great majority of people rebel against this. But, the collectivist anarchists continue to delude themselves . . . to their own detriment.

  17. Mike Theodore

    “G.E. reminds me of the bolsheviks I knew as a lad; they too were all about denouncing anyone who veeered from their party line, anyone who was not politically correct in their Marxist Leninist worldview. G.E. is a bolshevik libertarian.”

    Sounds about right. :D

Leave a Reply