Well, you've certainly provided a wealth of material to respond to, msduncan. You didn't quite address my question directly, so I'm going to assume this speaks to it:
So when you see me defend Bush and the Republicans to the nth degree -- it's because I don't want to even open the door to the Democrats to exploit a weakness in order to get into power to further their world socialists positions.
I'm going to take that to mean that you oppose investigations of voting irregularities, even for the betterment of the democracy/republic you profess to love so deeply, if they might benefit an opposition party. There are so many things wrong with that, I honestly don't know where to begin.
For the rest of your points --
1. With the NRA as powerful a lobbying force as it is, do you honestly think the Democrats are going to some how strip citizens of their guns? For heaven's sake, there was even a roll-back on assault weapons. If the Congress isn't going to block that, how on earth would they go after handguns? Btw, could you also please put forth a plan while you're at it to cut back on the numbers of accidental gun deaths each year? Or even the intentional ones?
Also, would you propose we disband the armed forces? Because an armed civilian populace isn't going to be much of a blocking force when an M1 rolls into town or an F-16 drops a bomb. The blocking force is the citizens themselves, not the weapons they carry. That's why there was so much turmoil over the Kent State shooting. We're not so deeply divided as a nation that it wouldn't cause a huge uproar if the armed forces were turned loose on protestors.
I'd also debate that the 2nd Amendment would be the first casualty, or even a casualty at all. With the world situation such as it is, the Patriot Act, environmental issues, stem cell research, supreme court justices coming up for appointment, gay marriage/civil unions, budget deficits, and health care -- I kind of think that a Democrat might have a host of things to work on, before after a provocative issue that would only further increase the divide in this country. Thus, your statement becomes inflammatory rhetoric.
2. An appointed Senate is ever less-representative of the populace. Just pointing that out, given that Merriam-Webster defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." Once you start getting into appointments instead of direct elections, you remove some of that responsibility to the populace. Although appointments would mean that some of the voting irregularities you refuse to investigate/work on would become moot.
3. Let's say that a universal health care plan passes through Congress and the President signs off on it (I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but we're talking hypotheticals) with solid popular support. Are you saying that because the country decided to address a pressing national issue, one the founders probably never even thought of, they're going against national interests? Should everyone involved be burnt at the stake for trying to solve a problem with perhaps a workable solution?
4. And last but not least, here are your words:
Because I also recognize that the modern liberal movement is far greater a threat to that old Republic I love so dearly than any other outside threat we've encountered.
This is something that's just... unbelievable, and it makes it very, very difficult to take you seriously. Liberals are a greater threat than Hitler or Japan was? They can do more damage to this country than all the terrorist groups combined out there? Clearly, support for better health care, concern about the environment, and equal rights for every citizen in this country are threats we all have to rally against. If they place the country in such grave danger (moreso than other countries where we've actually invaded to prevent them from being threats), why has there been no massive police action to take care of them?
