Allison Bricker

Essay No. 2

- A Response to My Friend Republicae from “Essays of the Revolution” and fellow member of the DailyPaul.

From my analysis, based upon multiple perspectives of historical research and subsequently merged harmoniously along with principal philosophies from the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ the Republic is not dormant; but was toppled long before the birth of the “lost” or 13th Generation. However make no mistake; the weight is borne with full impact by the 13th and all herein. As such, if we are to realign ourselves within the natural state of human liberty, it shall, as it always has, require a firm conviction by all who profess to favor Liberty to set about righting the glorious path which for so long has been allowed to drift astray.

Therefore, for the purposes of illustration and exchange let me offer a simplified time line of our history from which to begin:

Whilst it is doubtful the beginning of the simplified timeline would cause undue consternation to most, the justification for the transfer from Republic to Populist Democracy through to the present oligarchy will indeed make court historians of the state take umbrage at such an assertion. Therefore, let me make it plain, the timeline results from analysis that with passage of the “Trifecta” in 1913, the Central Authority, i.e. Washington D.C. was unchained from its Federalist restraints of carefully contrived Checks and Balances in its entirety, thus rendering the Republic as nothing more than an impotent sentimentality. Peering further in to the lecherous year of 1913 forebears witness to the key points of the dismantling, which leads us through to the present state of our disheveled Union:

• 16th Amendment (Collateralization of Americans and posterity, Feb. 3, 1913)
• 17th Amendment (Effectively removes states from any role/check on Federal Authority Apr. 8, 1913)
• FEDERAL RESERVE Act (Monopolization of monetary policy into hands of private bankers – Dec. 23, 1913)

All were principal in absolving the ship of state from its Constitutional moorings thereby allowing the Republic to begin listing in the kneejerk speculative inclinations of populist democracy, and thus resulting in a massive growth of central government. As history will illuminate, “democracy”, like the chaos of anarchy, is always a transitional period which results in the creation of a vacuum granting the means for miscreants and tyrants to further centralize power.

Further, with the end of Bretton Woods in 1971 and thus with the transition complete, the Central Banker Oligarchs gained total unchecked power over the nation; let the derivative financial schemes and nationalist neo-patriotism commence.

In conclusion, it is my view that if there is to be a restoration of the Republic in our lifetime we must accomplish the following for a peaceful transition:

1. End the 3rd Central Bank of the United States, i.e. FEDERAL RESERVE.
2. Repudiate Odious Debt created by FEDERAL RESERVE.
3. Repeal Income tax.
4. Restore State Check on the Central Authority’s power and simultaneously reintroduce the people to their representation amongst the several states by repealing the Direct Election of Senators.

May we see the Torch of Liberty Burn all the Brighter.

Your Friend in Liberty,

Allison Bricker

Joseph Marohl

The most crippling aspect of modern democracy is the decline in logical argument.

Logical argument was the invention of the Greeks, along with theatre (once used to bolster the free flow of ideas), philosophy, and Western democracy. All four of these contributions to civilization are posed against the blind acceptance of (or faith in) the dictates of authority and power.

In the first century of the American nation, political debates were actual debates—with set positions argued for and counter-arguments defended against. How great would it be now for seekers of high office to debate a single issue, such as the role of the middle classes in American society or the best policy towards foreign dictators!

At one time, argument permeated the social scene, with party invitations’ commonly instructing invitees to bone up on set topics in preparation for speaking on them with other guests. The middle-brow Circuit Chautauqua, nineteenth-century traveling shows, featured lectures on various topics from prison reform to memory improvement, mixed with band music and Metropolitan Opera singers, followed by question-and-answer sessions involving members of the community.

Much is made of the role of Faith in early American culture, but seldom is Argument credited for promoting progress and establishing America’s character and self-confidence. Ultimately, it was argument, not faith, that abolished slavery, expanded voting rights, and established the 40-hour work week.

By argument, I do not mean shouting people down. I do not see argument in the harangues of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. I would not count the glib sarcasm of Stephen Colbert and Al Franken, entertaining and valuable as it is, as argument. Oprah Winfrey, though a goddess of common sense, mainly exhorts and inspires—she rarely, if ever anymore, uses her show as a meeting-place for opposing opinions, as the old Phil Donahue and Dick Cavett shows used to do (and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher still attempts to do).

Argument requires a forum, where differences in opinion are expected, respected, and encouraged in the interest of forming a more complete understanding of the issues under debate.

Argument requires clarification of the dividing lines between opposing positions. It requires a focus on logic and facts as proofs for the rightness of one’s position.

Argument requires that probability, not certainty and not mere possibilities, be put to the test, “proof” meaning, quite simply, the test that an opinion is put to—by speakers and listeners alike.

Today America is full of opinions, but few Americans know how to back them up. Few Americans feel comfortable expressing their opinions, convinced that blithe agreeableness is preferable to taking a position—while others think that bull-headed pontification requires no further explanation or proof.

Things have gotten so bad that to take any position at all more complicated or unusual than what can be fit on a bumper sticker smacks of extremism—or crackpotism.

The old adage forbidding discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table has now morphed into “Let’s just agree to disagree,” a more polite way of saying, “Shut up—I’m not interested in your reasons for disagreeing with me.”

Now that nobody expects anyone to back up anything he or she says in public, all kinds of bullshit pass for intelligent commentary these days. Idiocy is justified on the grounds that idiots sincerely believe in their idiocy.

Sincerity and good intentions are things we cannot evaluate or judge from outside. Facts, logic, and clarity of expression are things we can observe and make judgments on. As long as sincerity counts more than proof, humanity will not see further progress.

The sincerity of your belief and hope for the future is admirable, but what exactly are you saying, and how can you back it up?