Ron Paul: Revolution or Restoration?

[FrankRep]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfDVDJatXpIwnAwZnAp4yEibDCz2XxT nIbLKqCgX4ILAaTXI8OVw&t=1



Using the word "Revolution" hurts Ron Paul. Plus, it attracts the trouble makers who want chaos and anarchy.


Ron Paul: Revolution or Restoration? (http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/13/ron-paul-revolution-or-restoration/)


Rojas | The Crossed Pond
June 13th 2007



REVOLUTION: a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.


Oliver Cromwell…Maximillian Robespierre…Che Guevara…Ron Paul?

One thing about libertarians: we never back away from a fight. In fact, even when there isn’t a fight present–even when one isn’t necessary–we’ll seek to start one, so that we can not back away from it.

We are a strident people. It occurs to me that the tone of our “Ron Paul Revolution,” especially as it’s manifesting itself on the internet, may be strident for stridency’s sake, rather than as a means to any productive end.

Don’t get me wrong; “Ron Paul Revolution” is fun to say, and it makes for great T-shirts and banners. But does the association with revolution help Ron Paul, or hurt him? And is the application of the term even accurate in this case?

It’s not that I object to enthusiasm in Ron Paul’s cause. Indeed, I find myself feeling a political enthusiasm for his candidacy that I haven’t experienced in a long, long time. My objection is to the tone in which that enthusiasm is occasionally expressed. Specifically: I find it a bit strange that we’re casting a humble and mild-mannered physician from East Texas as some kind of magnificent Napoleonic figure who’ll radically alter the fabric of society.

Ron Paul isn’t that. Not at all. And I think he’d be a bit puzzled to hear himself described in those terms.

Paul’s entire project is to restore the Constitutional role of the federal government–in foreign policy, in social control, and elsewhere. We can disagree on the full extent to which the US has abandoned these principles, or when the slippage began (the Great Society, the New Deal, Lincoln, etc). The main point is that Ron Paul’s message is not, in any meaningful sense, “revolutionary” at all. If anything, his message could be more accurately termed the Ron Paul RESTORATION.

This is an important point to understand, given whom we’re trying to communicate with. Republican voters are not a revolutionary lot. The wisest of them are the intellectual heirs of Edmund Burke, who recognized that radical change carries dangers of its own, regardless of and independent of the merits of the object of that change. To approach intellectual conservatives with a message of “revolution” is counter-productive at best and quixotic at worst.

Moreover, the candidate himself recognizes this. As I noted here (http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/05/the-transition-period/), Paul has been quite explicit that his reform strategy would be INCREMENTAL in nature, not revolutionary. Dr. Paul recognizes that the changes he proposes border on being too radical for his target audience to swallow. We do him no favors when we emphasize the radicalism of his reforms. When we do that, we convince Republican voters that it’s a revolution against them, and obviously that’s not going to win their support.

If this campaign is going to produce real reform, our audience needs to see us as partners in a common cause, not as barbarians at the gates. Ron Paul’s message of limited government and constitutional authority has core appeal to Republican primary voters. Let’s not kill that appeal by calling out the guillotines.


SOURCE:
http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/13/ron-paul-revolution-or-restoration/

[Dreamofunity]

Radical change is needed, the problems are systemic. Whatever you title the change is not an issue for me.

[Aratus]

KYNGE CHARLES II was the spirit, soul and veritable body of merrie auld RESTORATION England!!!
POTUS Andrew Johnson later on sounded sorta like a Royalist when talking of his own Restoration era.
Our Revolution is the revolution Doctor Ron Paul happily alludes to each time he speaks in public!!!
I am taking the high road and i am thusly giving both Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin the benefit
of the doubt in terms of how they absorbed their own history lessons when happily in grade school.
I am also doing my wry darndest to avoid any threads about Rep. Weiner as i opine on how Facebook
hath no true privacy or firewalls. Politicians forget that they live in metaphoric glass houses whereas
all true statesmen & stateswomen expect that they shall have a high degree of scrutiny for all eternity.

[YumYum]

America needs to get into "recovery". They have "recovery" in AA. How come Ron Paul doesn't have a 12 step recovery program for Americans who are addicted to being stupid?

Acceptance --> Surrender--> Recovery

[Gumba of Liberty]

Reformation, Renaissance, or Awakening may all describe the movement better than Revolution, but the word Revolution describes the way the American people feel. We are pissed and the government should know it.

[The Dark Knight]

I personally think we need a restoration of Constitutional allegiance. therefore I think it should be called the Ron Paul Restoration.

[ds21089]

Hence "Restore America Now".....

[sailingaway]

He makes good points in terms of selling the message to others.

[FrankRep]

Which is it -- Revolution or Restoration?

[LibertyEagle]

It should be restoration, in my opinion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Using the word "Revolution" hurts Ron Paul. Plus, it attracts the trouble makers who want chaos and anarchy.

An American movement differs from both a revolution and a restoration. Back when our Founding Fathers gathered in fellowship, they established certain self evident truths which, if the king would have taken the trouble to think them through, might have allowed him to avoid violence by way of accepting their validity as unalienable rights. A person's unalienable natural rights amounted to far greater truths than civil rights because they reduced down like DnA on the physical level. After deciding to turn down their validity instead, the king was deemed a tyrant by our Founders and, so, divorced as a rightfully ordained ruler over us. This ushered in a violent revolution which ultimately became an American movement.
There is a subtle difference between restoration and redemption. All restoration does is restore the prostitute (the people) back to her prior condition of living on the street under bridges. Beyond that, our Founders were more burdened with redemption with this Civil Purpose being something totally original and new -- not a legal precedent based on past traditions but a new Civil Purpose based on the science of natural law. According to what they declared in The Declaration of Independence, the mightiest of kings and the least of prostitutes were both born into this world equal with them having the same exact business agenda for life. While peace is necessary to acheive the blessed king's eternal dynasty ruling on his throne, a violent revolution will be necessary to get the cursed prostitute out from under the bridge and off the street.
She is alone in her burden. As the Almighty said, stand in faith, walk in faith.

[Paul4Prez]

Revolution. Electing Ron Paul will be a MAJOR change to the status quo -- why do you think the establishment keeps trying to downplay his chances?

I like what Ron Paul said about the term four years ago. A revolution (like the Earth revolving around the sun) is a return to where we were -- back to liberty and Constitutional government.

Ron Paul was the only Republican presidential candidate who won in 2008. A big part of that was offering real change, not soft-peddling it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just as liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery, the Constitution for the sake of the Constitution is no better than a dictatorship. These two qualities are just prerequisite means necessary to achieve a greater goal with that end being the people's Civil Purpose. In returning to our **Founders by way of American movement, we return to their *founders as well.
*We should depict the lessor founders in the lower case as they dealt with matters concerning legal precedence established on long standing traditions; meanwhile, **we should depict our Founding Fathers in the upper case as they dealt with matters concerning certain truths established on the science of natural law.

[Exponent]

I say both. Especially since we're talking about target audiences and which message sells. But more "restoration" while we're in the primaries, and more "revolution" if we make it to the general, since right now we need Republican votes, but in the general we would need independents, miscellaneous third parties, and moderate Democrats.

But from a purely strategic point of view, I still don't think we should try to shush the audience that is more strongly drawn to the revolution message. The reason being that primary voters do base their decision in part on whether or not they think a candidate will do well in the general election. I think Ron Paul excels in this regard compared to all the other candidates, but it helps if that fact is also obvious to people who aren't already Paul fans.

Nonetheless, I respect the fact that even in terms of pure strategy, this is a very delicate balance, and it becomes an even more complicated balance when you take into account personal ethics and the constant tug of ideals versus pragmatic compromise.

[FrankRep]

Revolution. Electing Ron Paul will be a MAJOR change to the status quo --

Revolution.... like the French or Egyptian Revolution?

[Raudsarw]

What is there to restore? The United States has never truly followed the law. The Alien and Sedition Acts for example. For the United States to truly follow its constitution, that would be an entirely new. That said, we should use whatever gets us more appeal.

[Johncjackson]

Using the word "Revolution" hurts Ron Paul. Plus, it attracts the trouble makers who want chaos and anarchy.

Trouble makers and anarchists are the people who love liberty. Non 'trouble makers" go with the status quo.

That said, I understand your point.. mostly because Ron Paul needs to attract people outside of his obvious base to be politically effective.

[Dr.3D]

It should be restoration, in my opinion.

As it is mine.

Restore the Republic!

[FrankRep]

What is there to restore?

Restore the Republic and Constitution.

[BuddyRey]

Revolution.... like the French or Egyptian Revolution?

The American Revolution 2.0

[R3volutionJedi]

The American Revolution 2.0

Epic WIN :)

And It's a R3VOLUTION

Revolution + Love.

Peaceful Restoration.

[Anti Federalist]

Using the word "Revolution" hurts Ron Paul. Plus, it attracts the trouble makers who want chaos and anarchy.

I'd normally get angry about this, but tonight I'm just chuckling.

Yeah, great idea Frank, now, can you just convince Ron Paul to stop hurting, ummm, Ron Paul?

I was in the crowd at Exeter Town Hall, I heard him say, with my own ears, "I am so delighted to see you (the people) involved in a REVOLUTION!"

He then went on to use the term multiple times.

He did not say "reform".

He did not say "restore".

He did not say "revitalize".

He said "Revolution".

And by God and Sonny Jesus, that it just what it is going to take, to have any hope of turning this around, a freaking revolution.

The man means what he says and says what he means.

I, nor he, can help it if by doing so, some people get the vapors. The truth is scary, no doubt.

At about 3:30 in the video when he starts his speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVk7ODDQUo8

[FrankRep]

Yeah, great idea Frank, now, can you just convince Ron Paul to stop hurting, ummm, Ron Paul?

I was in the crowd at Exeter Town Hall, I heard him say, with my own ears, "I am so delighted to see you (the people) involved in a REVOLUTION!"

From a marketing perspective. People have very negative connotations connected to the word "Revolution."

Just a warning.

[Anti Federalist]

From a marketing perspective. People have very negative connotations connected to the word "Revolution."

Just a warning.

Makes my head explode.

You don't "market" a revolution.

A revolution is brought about by a minority that doesn't care what public opinion thinks, at the start.

[FrankRep]

Makes my head explode.

You don't "market" a revolution.

A revolution is brought about by a minority that doesn't care what public opinion thinks, at the start.

The Minority doesn't win elections. Just ask the Libertarian Party.

[Anti Federalist]

The Minority doesn't win elections. Just ask the Libertarian Party.

Lol, I'm too weary to argue.

Let's just bring in some slick media consultants to get our candidate to shut up then.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I will add some perspective...

Think for a moment about every time you see someone say... "Ron Paul is not a libertarian... Ron Paul is not this.... Ron Paul is not that..."

What is the motivation behind this? What possible motivation could some one have to always be against something?

Remember when there was a vocal minority of people who pointed out Ron Paul has been a member of Mises, read Ann Rand and her news letters, ran for the Libertarian Party, etc. Remember how certain people lambasted and tried to ostracize this position? Remember how this seemed like it was one of the biggest intellectual battles on this forum? Remember when some people claimed other people were co-opting Ron Paul?



http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6523/anarchistflame.jpg

:eek:


Yet at every opportunity Ron Paul has absolutely shocked the pants off of a lot of people in this very forum with comments about voluntaryism despite the fact people have pointed out his long standing associations with Austrian economics and Libertarian philosophy. It is not even argued anymore because the critics have completely run out of smears when it can now be rebutted in Ron Paul's own words... in video no less...

So who is constantly spamming this:


Ron Paul endorses (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?132355-Congressman-Ron-Paul-endorses-The-John-Birch-Society) the John Birch Society.


Ron Paul at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society


http://www.vimeo.com/19602654


Ron Paul Addresses John Birch Society (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409)

What is the point to spamming one endorsement in 50 years? Think about that... one endorsement compared to a lifetime studying Austrian economics.

Considering the history between Bircher's and Randian's what I find ironically hilarious is that the story Ron Paul told about Greenspan in the JBS speech involves something that appeared in Rand's Objectivist news letters. Which Ron Paul acknowledges reading! I am certain there is no ill will or bad intentions involved but talk about a 50 year anniversary speech at JBS involving the irony of ironies...



Gold and Economic Freedom
by Alan Greenspan
Published in Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" newsletter in 1966, and reprinted in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in 1967.

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.


http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htmLet's take an old Playboy Interview with Rand:

PLAYBOY: You have attacked Governor Nelson Rockefeller for “lumping all opponents of the welfare state with actual crackpots.” It was clear from his remarks that among others, he was aiming his criticism at the John Birch Society. Do you resent being lumped with the John Birchers? Do you consider them “crackpots” or a force for good?


RAND: I resent being lumped with anyone. I resent the modern method of never defining ideas, and lumping totally different people into a collective by means of smears and derogatory terms. I resent Governor Rockefeller’s smear tactics: his refusal to identify specifically whom and what he meant. As far as I’m concerned, I repeat, I don’t want to be lumped with anyone, and certainly not with the John Birch Society. Do I consider them crackpots? No, not necessarily. What is wrong with them is that they don’t seem to have any specific, clearly defined political philosophy. Therefore, some of them may be crackpots, others may be very well-meaning citizens. I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism, but merely against communism. I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today’s world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas. The Birchers seem to be either nonintellectual or anti-intellectual. They do not attach importance to ideas. They do not realize that the great battle in the world today is a philosophical, ideological conflict.
So think about that for a moment. Really reflect on who has gotten a really bad rap around here... would it include people who have only focused on the philosophical, ideological conflict?

When you think about conservative philosophy versus libertarian philsophy... where is the conservative philosophy? What the hell is conservative philosophy? There isn't any. What great minarchist philosophers have graced the presence of Ron Paul forums? None.

Because conservatism is analogous to how Rand described JBS. It is just being against something and not being for something. Conservatism can't claim anything that it is for because the republican party and conservatives have the worst track record of all time for reducing or eliminating anything. Think about how often Ron Paul has to answer in the media about being against something. Doesn't Ron Paul often say... well in order to be against something you must be for something. Does he not then go on to talk about what he is for?

Are you for something or against something? Reflect on why Rand would characterize an organization that is only against something as futile.

Maybe an RPF psychologist can elaborate on the difference and why it may be true libertarians aren't good at winning elections, but libertarian philosophy has gained more support.

Liberty philosophy is hope. Liberty philosophy kindles the brush fires of freedom. It spreads...

Famous anti-war supporters, famous anti-war rallies, or famous anti-war causes come and go...

But the ideas of famous people who have been for freedom and liberty never really die...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Reflecting further on the above post... it should be perfectly clear why Ron Paul can state the goal is total freedom....

Because Ron Paul is FOR something.... FREEDOM... LIBERTY! And Ron Paul has stated he intends to get from here to there using the Constitution....

Who knows what Ron Paul would do if we were there... we aren't there... we aren't even close to there... but if we we're there... I think I would still digg Ron Paul because I think Ron Paul would still be talking about more FREEDOM... or more LIBERTY! Because Ron Paul is for freedom and liberty...

[Anti Federalist]

bumpage

[notsure]

http://i51.tinypic.com/2h2k09j.jpg

[noneedtoaggress]

The Minority doesn't win elections. Just ask the Libertarian Party.

“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” - Ron Paul

[noneedtoaggress]

Restore the Republic and Constitution.

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

[FrankRep]

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed


The Constitution itself isn't the magic bullet for liberty. The founding fathers, especially John Adams, would agree.



Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

[noneedtoaggress]

The Constitution itself isn't the magic bullet for liberty. The founding fathers, especially John Adams, would agree.



Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

What are you implying? That the people living under the US govt/constitution must be made "moral and religious" for "the restoration" to be effective in your mind?

The 'New Constitutionalist Man' so to speak?

[Dr.3D]

The Constitution itself isn't the magic bullet for liberty. The founding fathers, especially John Adams, would agree.



Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

No wonder this country is going down the toilet.

[noneedtoaggress]

No wonder this country is going down the toilet.

People aren't unintelligent so much as they are specialized in their own areas of interest, and also make mistakes. You can't really blame "the masses", which is just a collectivist mental construct anyway.

When individuals refuse to engage logic and reason and turn to emotionally charged outbursts, they are indeed being disingenuous when it comes to intelligent and positive discourse. (I'm not pointing my finger at anyone here, just sayin)

[GunnyFreedom]

Restoring the American Revolution

[FrankRep]

Restoring the American Revolution
America is going through a Revolution... a Globalist Revolution.

I want to restore the Constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

America is going through a Revolution... a Globalist Revolution.

I want to restore the Constitution.

Well, my campaign motto was "Restore The Constitutional Order" so, I certainly agree with that...

[FrankRep]

Well, my campaign motto was "Restore The Constitutional Order" so, I certainly agree with that...
Smart move.

[noneedtoaggress]

I want to restore the Constitution.

How?


What are you implying? That the people living under the US govt/constitution must be made "moral and religious" for "the restoration" to be effective in your mind?

The 'New Constitutionalist Man' so to speak?

[ClayTrainor]

Revolution is for people who want to keep going around in circles. What is needed is an evolution of ideas.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, my campaign motto was "Restore The Constitutional Order" so, I certainly agree with that...

In restoring the Constitution, the only thing that will be restored is a matter of opinion. This nation wasn't established on an opinion. You are trying to restore the nation on the long standing traditions of legal precedence which will require the top five percent into tricking half of the nation into destroying the other half. Then the oldest makes a marvelous living by selling the youngest into prostitution.

[itsnobody]

"Ron Paul Revolution" was the theme back in 2007-2008 we need something new for 2011-2012....but I still personally like the Revolution word some what

[heavenlyboy34]

America is going through a Revolution... a Globalist Revolution.

I want to restore the Constitution.
This is a poor choice of words (and RP makes this mistake as well). More accurately, you should say "I want to implement the Constitution". This is because the theoretical, classical liberal concepts behind it have never been fully implemented. (See "Liberalism" by Ludwig Von Mises)

[LibertyEagle]

I'd normally get angry about this, but tonight I'm just chuckling.

Yeah, great idea Frank, now, can you just convince Ron Paul to stop hurting, ummm, Ron Paul?

I was in the crowd at Exeter Town Hall, I heard him say, with my own ears, "I am so delighted to see you (the people) involved in a REVOLUTION!"

He then went on to use the term multiple times.

He did not say "reform".

He did not say "restore".

He did not say "revitalize".

He said "Revolution".

And by God and Sonny Jesus, that it just what it is going to take, to have any hope of turning this around, a freaking revolution.

The man means what he says and says what he means.

I, nor he, can help it if by doing so, some people get the vapors. The truth is scary, no doubt.

At about 3:30 in the video when he starts his speech.



Yes, but you are leaving out the fact that he initially didn't like the term that the grassroots came up with at all. He went along with it, yes. We didn't give him much of a choice.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, but you are leaving out the fact that he initially didn't like the term that the grassroots came up with at all. He went along with it, yes. We didn't give him much of a choice.

I've never read anywhere that he hated the term. Link?

And I find it hard to believe that the entire political establishment couldn't break the man over a decades long career, yet he would use term that he disagreed with, over and over again, just because some of us do.

[LibertyEagle]

I've never read anywhere that he hated the term. Link?

And I find it hard to believe that the entire political establishment couldn't break the man over a decades long career, yet he would use term that he disagreed with, over and over again, just because some of us do.

lol. You can believe it or not, AF. I don't care. :p He mentioned it in one of the videos he used to do where he was sitting at his desk. It was some time back. It had to do with it possibly being misunderstood. As I recall, he somewhat laughed about it.

[Anti Federalist]

lol. You can believe it or not, AF. I don't care. :p He mentioned it in one of the videos he used to do where he was sitting at his desk. It was some time back. It had to do with it possibly being misunderstood. As I recall, he somewhat laughed about it.

:p right back atcha. ;)

All I can say is he must not hate it very much now.

Imma gonna stick with it!

[LibertyEagle]

:). I doubt it matters much at this point. I mean, he did put the word, revolution, in a book title. lol

[outspoken]

You can't restore something that never was. The American Dream has always been just that, an idea or thought residing in the consciousness of a precious few. It was and continues to be an ideology residing in the minds of those who seek individual freedom both for themselves as well as for those around them. Even within those professing to be an advocate of liberty, you find people with self-destructive behaviors because they don't value their own life let alone feel empathy for another's. Government exists because we as one race do not of our own free will treat one another as we wish to treat ourselves. A little charity goes a long ways and when we do encounter injustice even just on a personal level such as two co-workers in conflict human nature is such that the vast majority turn the other way.

We have spent the last century liberating blacks and women (and now add those whose sexual preferences are not in line with the perceived norms). As we have been liberating certain sects of the citizenry there has also been an element that has been slowly usurping liberties from the majority. The sad reality is that now we are all slaves to the sinful of man; namely the ubber elite using power and greed to make us all puppets in a very sick game. There's only one way out of the matrix and that is choosing all that is derived from love over our inherent propensity towards fear. We are in the midst of mankind's final revolution; it is a revolution for the mind and soul of humanity and in the end will not be won by sheer eye-for-an-eye violence but rather the rejection of such means to an end.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You can't restore something that never was. The American Dream has always been just that, an idea or thought residing in the consciousness of a precious few. It was and continues to be an ideology residing in the minds of those who seek individual freedom both for themselves as well as for those around them. Even within those professing to be an advocate of liberty, you find people with self-destructive behaviors because they don't value their own life let alone feel empathy for another's. Government exists because we as one race do not of our own free will treat one another as we wish to treat ourselves. A little charity goes a long ways and when we do encounter injustice even just on a personal level such as two co-workers in conflict human nature is such that the vast majority turn the other way.

We have spent the last century liberating blacks and women (and now add those whose sexual preferences are not in line with the perceived norms). As we have been liberating certain sects of the citizenry there has also been an element that has been slowly usurping liberties from the majority. The sad reality is that now we are all slaves to the sinful of man; namely the ubber elite using power and greed to make us all puppets in a very sick game. There's only one way out of the matrix and that is choosing all that is derived from love over our inherent propensity towards fear. We are in the midst of mankind's final revolution; it is a revolution for the mind and soul of humanity and in the end will not be won by sheer eye-for-an-eye violence but rather the rejection of such means to an end.

As they demand from us to shoot an apple out of a tree as a penalty for our existence, they also pass laws keeping us from aiming our arrows at the ideal of a blue sky above. So, in the end, the people always come up short of our goals. Yet, we can't pass laws making the ideal greater than the law of the land as then such a desire becomes an opinion subject to their interpretation. So, it is up to us to step forth.
The greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of ammending alterations. This means we progess mostly because of our returning to revere our ancestors and not because of the technology created by tyranny in an attempt at distracting us away from doing so. Yet, all this modern technology does is weaken our tolerance to the extent we actually believe that we aren't poisoning our own fathers, cheating our own sons, and killing our own brothers.
I don't want help from the government or my family. As a United States citizen, I am not family oriented, but nation oriented, which is one that has been established through the shedding of blood. In order to reconstitute this nation, the people need to be tolerant of the people (as tyranny will never be tolerant because they are drunk on a false power). Leave me alone under the bridges. Don't give me money. Let me work it out through prayer.