Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Why Can’t Americans Have Democracy?

March 6, 2012 by  

Why Can’t Americans Have Democracy?

Syria has a secular government as did Iraq prior to the american invasion. Secular governments are important in Arab lands in which there is division between Sunni and Shiite. Secular governments keep the divided population from murdering one another.

When the american invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard set by the U.S. after World War II, overthrew the Saddam Hussein secular government, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites went to war against one another. The civil war between Iraqis saved the american invasion. Nevertheless, enough Sunnis found time to fight the american occupiers of Iraq that the U.S. was never able to occupy Bagdad, much less Iraq, no matter how violent and indiscriminate the U.S. was in the application of force.

The consequence of the U.S. invasion was not democracy and women’s rights in Iraq, much less the destruction of weapons of mass destruction which did not exist as the weapons inspectors had made perfectly clear beforehand. The consequence was to transfer political power from Sunnis to Shiites. The Shiite version of Islam is the Iranian version. Thus, Washington’s invasion transferred power in Iraq from a secular government to Shiites allied with Iran.

Now Washington intends to repeat its folly in Syria. According to the american Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Washington is even prepared to ally with al-Qaida in order to overthrow Assad’s government. Now that Washington itself has al-Qaida connections, will the government in Washington be arrested under the anti-terrorism laws?

Washington’s hostility toward Assad is hypocritical. On Feb. 26, the Syrian government held a referendum on a new constitution for Syria that set term limits on future presidents and removed the political monopoly that the Ba’ath Party has enjoyed.

The Syrian voter turnout was 57.4 percent, matching the voter turnout for Obama in 2008. It was a higher voter turnout (despite the armed, Western-supported rebellion in Syria) than in the nine U.S. presidential elections from 1972 through 2004. The new Syrian constitution was approved by a vote of 89.4 percent.

But Washington denounced the democratic referendum and claims that the Syrian government must be overthrown in order to bring democracy to Syria.

Washington’s allies in the region, unelected oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have issued statements that they are willing to supply weapons to the Islamist rebels in order to bring democracy — something they do not tolerate at home — to Syria.

For Washington “democracy” is a weapon of mass destruction. When Washington brings “democracy” to a country, it means the country’s destruction, as in Libya and Iraq. It doesn’t mean democracy. Libya is in chaos, a human rights nightmare without an effective government.

Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as president of Iraq. He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to arrest Sunni politicians. Syria’s Assad is more democratic than Iraq’s Maliki.

For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as “bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.” While Washington was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington was destroying democracy in the U.S. Washington has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed due process and habeas corpus. At Obama’s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits american subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches and spying, illegal and unConstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are now routine.

Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to murder any american anywhere if the executive branch decides, without presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the U.S. government. Any american anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the U.S. government. The other two “co-equal” branches have shriveled away under the “war on terror.”

Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the Emirates), Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to Constitutional rights in america?

The rights that americans gained from successful revolution against King George III in the 18th Century have all been taken away by Bush/Obama in the 21st Century. One might think that this would be a news story, but it isn’t.

Don’t expect the Ministry of Truth to say anything about it.

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts

was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following, and can be accessed here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Why Can’t Americans Have Democracy?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Cesar Fernandez-Stoll

    Democracy is the problematic word because it is made an ideal but not an objective.
    Democracy is NOT the government of the majority nor it is of the minority, but the government of the people, recognized as free individuals, to grow and prosper with their families, without government, kings or dictators to tell them what or how is best for them.
    The invasion of Iraq was and is a problem because the Iraqis were denied that point in their history, because the war, was not let be one, but a political game, that started by having a congressional approval, to go to war, but which at the next hour, politicians, decided to step back and play the game by making sure, the war ended in defeat, yes, of their own people, because the army fighting in Iraq was their own.
    The Middle East is and will be a problem because the people is abandoned to the mercy of the powers in place. Those powers use and abuse everything that is at their reach to keep the people dumb under their voice. If it is not their religion, it is their money, and if not, it is the weaponry, yes of mass destruction which is handed to them so that the status quo is preserved.
    There was the opportunity in 1991 to start changing that rotten world by defeating, completely defeating Saddam and it was decided to back off and let the corrupt UN deal with the ‘problem’ and we know how effective that was.
    Then the war on terror was declared by the Middle East and their religion, because to date, they are very reluctant not to celebrate that ‘victory’ of their ‘army’, the silent army which the west has learned to fear, to the point of sacrificing our own liberties in the name of not upsetting their sleep.
    I do not think the answer is to keep the status quo going forever, because that ‘balance’, that peace, that is predicated, only happens to be ‘good’ for those who fear the truth and are ready to sacrifice peoples all over the world to feel them and them alone are able to sleep.
    Now ‘peace’ has been declared again and the scenario is all changed and the dictators and kings are still around if in different bodies and the menace is more real and present.
    How is that situation better or worst than before?
    The only possible outcome to any war needs and must to be victory. Victory means that the victorious can establish an impose the terms for peace.

    • Ted Crawford

      Cesar;
      ” The victorious can establish and impose the terms for peace”, That being the case I prefer the terms Grant offered Lee and Lincoln (not my favorite President) extended to the South.

      • DaveH

        A more honest wording of that would be “The Aggressors, if they win, can establish and impose the terms for peace”.

      • Cesar Fernandez-Stoll

        In a world that more and more drifts apart from God, and any morality, the terminology has become rather diffused.
        If the ‘enemy’ aggressor or not is open to dialogue, why would there be any aggressor or not.
        I think it is when points of view get into trying to see war as what is not, when war becomes bread for politicians. They should be forced into going into battle, as before, in front of the troops, so that they learn what is it about what they are voting for, so that they can think if there is any room to vote against.

      • DaveH

        Grant, as well as Sherman, was a vicious killer of non-combatants, who was guilty of war-crimes. But then, what else can people expect from hired killers?

      • Cesar Fernandez-Stoll

        Death is not the problem with war, but commitment and understanding, because if true acknowledgement would exist, PRIOR, to go to war and what being at war means, then it would not be as simplistic or ‘easy’ to engage in one, because once war is declared, there will be little room for negotiation because suffer and pain would have taken over.
        Peace is not the absence of war, but the acceptance of the truth.
        War is not the problem, because war is an ultimate resource to reach a final ‘agreement’, lack of commitment is.

      • DaveH
    • noel

      do let us know when the united states becomes a democracy…WE THE PEOPLE are a REPUBLIC pende’jo!!!
      OBAMANOS!!!

      • Cesar Fernandez-Stoll

        Exactly and 100% agree!
        The point is precisely yours, that democracy is the wrong objective. The Constitution is and should always be the objective.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Cesar Fernandez-Stoll, good, good another voice to add to growing chorus.

      • Ted Crawford

        On April 8, 1913 with the passage of the seventeenth amendment, having been preceeded by the passage of the sixteenth on Feburary 3, the first changes to the Constitution in exactly 43 years to the day!

      • vicki

        Cesar Fernandez-Stoll says:

        The point is precisely yours, that democracy is the wrong objective. The Constitution is and should always be the objective.

        The Constitution (of the United States) is a CONTRACT not an objective. The objective of that contract is to delegate a LIMITED number of explicet powers to the (federal) government to allow it to perform the objective of government.

        The objective of government is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…..”
        http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    • vicki

      Cesar Fernandez-Stoll says:

      Democracy is NOT the government of the majority nor it is of the minority, but the government of the people, recognized as free individuals, to grow and prosper with their families, without government, kings or dictators to tell them what or how is best for them.

      I think you have confused Anarchy with Democracy. Anarchy would be without government, kings or dictators to tell them what or how to be.

      Democracy is explicitly “rule of the majority” and thusly it is government of the majority.
      1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy?show=0&t=1331074265

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Cesar Fernandez-Stoll, you;re right that a democracy isn’t anarchy, not at all but, it is recognized as the next step that a nation takes toward tyranny or anarchy.

  • David in MA

    “Why Can’t americans Have Democracy?”

    Because the Founders were smart enough to establish a Constitutional Republic and structure it in a reasonable fashon.

    Lets keep it, as it has worked very well for over 200 years, can any other country calom the fortune & success America can?

    AND, anyone who does not like America’s form of government can immigrate to a country of their likeing, and, have a nice trip.

    • DaveH

      Worked well for 200 years? Sorry, but the Republic was sabotaged by Power Hungry Leaders over 150 years ago.
      Read these books to learn more:
      “Hamilton’s Curse”
      “The Real Lincoln”
      “Lincoln Unmasked”

  • http://firefox wog1

    At Obama’s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits American subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. First the Americans are not subjects at least we should not be but the Dems thinks we are. Democracy is not the answer but a Republic is. That is why the Founding Fathers insisted on a republic. The problems in the middle east is that there was no government in force to protect the various factions and now that is chaos. That is what their whole goals was. You say they want to give them freedom (ha) but yet they want to destroy our freedoms. Good point. But of you look the entire picture it is as clear as a bell.

    • David in MA

      If the penquin should get another four years, America is a dead country, and, if the penquin does not declare martial law (I believe he will) before elections Americans must vote out all in government who are running for re-election and bring in some new people, the current congress appears to be in obozo’s corner for destroying America and forming an islamic socialist government….all any reasonable person has to do to see obozo’a agenda is to add up the many things he has done so far……
      AND! I believe obozo IS White, not black.

      • John

        and calling the elected president of this country childish names just shows your lack of maturity, It does not mater if you like him or not, name calling is something my children stopped when they where 10. No wonder the rest of this world believes the US is governed by uneducated children. If you believe calling him names will win any people over to your cause then you seem to be delusional.

      • DaveH

        So you think an ad hominem attack on David puts you in a superior position, John?

      • Libertytrain

        gee john, I hope you properly chastised and continue to chastise the left for its verbiage re George W. Bush.

    • BigBadJohn

      WOG – check your facts – It was a REPUBLICAN congress that wrote those clauses into the NDAA bill. Obama used Bush’s trick of “signing statements” to over-rule the bill. Which says he WILL NOT USE those provisions.

      Should he have vetoed the bill – HELL YA!

      • DaveH

        John, the Republicans only control the House. The Senate could have killed the bill.

      • BigBadJohn

        Dave – Could have and should have!

        As you said we have career politicians who are afraid to lose their jobs.

        Do you think that democrats in the senate would have been unrelentingly attacked for killing a military spending bill? I believe this is the same reason Obama did not veto it.
        But the fact remains that it was republicans in the congress that put those provisions in the bill to start with.

      • DaveH

        You need to get over the Partisan paradigm, BigBad. They are playing us.

      • Vicki

        BigBadJohn writes

        But the fact remains that it was republicans in the congress that put those provisions in the bill to start with.

        Seems quite unlikely that republicans put those provisions in the bill.

        Now as it happens I DO have evidence that the most dangerous part of the bill (the part that might subject any US Citizen to indefinate detention) was engineered by the WhiteHouse. Now the evidence actually shows the White House asking the House of Representatives to remove a part of the bill that would directly state the bill will not apply to US Citizens. The evidence also shows that the cosponsor of the bill is a democrat.
        http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10170-obama-admin-pushed-for-indefinite-detention-provision

        All this shows is that DaveH is correct and we need to stop watching the left vs right axis of politics and focus on the 100% to 0% axis of government power.

      • Mark in LA

        Our rights have been stolen by both parties taking turns. If it was only one party, there would be a fight to actually restore those rights when the leadership changes.

        There never is such a fight.

        Andrew Bacevich talked about this in the Bush Term. He said look at all the howling from the Democrats about the Partiot Act. He said, watch once Obama gets in he will find its extraordinary power to spy on his enemies to good to give up. Andrew was right wasn’t he?

  • absolutely amazed

    Iraq we did invade – flat out Bush/Cheney/Regressive/Republican.

    Libya WE did not invade, a more reasoned approach.

    Do you suggest that our lack of democracy in the USA is good or bad?

    • cawun cents

      Let me simplify…….

      Iraq was a case where the father left a mess that he never could clean up.
      He relied on sonny boy to get it done for him.
      Capice’?
      That is all.
      -CC.

    • BigBadJohn

      absolutely – I like your name…..

      Don’t forget Bush’s attacks on freedom that most folks here try to pin on Obama. Rendition, wire tapping every American and painting everyone that disagreed with him, as a traitor who hates America.
      Not to mention his use of Nazi propaganda:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
      Joseph Goebbels

      “….the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
      Exactly what happened in 2006 and 2008 – people realized they were lied to.

      Should be interesting to see peoples reaction in the coming election, to being lied to again.

    • DaveH

      Actually we did have boots on the ground in Libya. But even if we hadn’t, are you saying it’s okay for us to attack countries, who in no way have attacked us, as long as we just kill them from the sky? Scary, amazed dude.

    • revnowwhilewecan

      Obama, or whatever his name is does’t lie! If you don’t believe me just ask him! LOL Anyway, that “indefinate detention” bill that he passed would’ve made even G.W. blush when it hit his desk.

  • Ted Crawford

    I see that many here agree with me that Democracy is not what we need or want. What’s even more important is that not even our Founders wanted that; “A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%” Thomas Jefferson
    Many foreign observers, watching the birth and early growth of this Nation understood this; ” The American Republic will endure, untill the politicians realize that thay can bribe the people with their own money” Alexis de Tocqueville 1787
    ” A Democracy cannot exist as a permanant form of government. It can only exist untill the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the Public Treasury….a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a dictatorship” Alexander Fraser Tyler 1787
    It seems that even our enemies understand this much better than the average American; ” Democracy is the road to socialism” Karl Marx— “Democracy is beautiful in theory, in pratice it is a fallacy” Benito Mussolini
    What is wanted here, in America, there, in the Middle East and where ever possible are Constitutional Republics! We began our rapid downfall with the Civil War, we are now if a freefall with this current administration!

  • Donnie

    Simple.

    First, democracy is evil. It is a form of anarchy where the vote of the 51% can take away the Rights of the 49%. The U.S. has never been and should never be a democracy, but rather a Republic.

    Secondly, you have unalienable (non-transferable) Rights that are granted by God and enumerated in part by the Constitution. You must know your Rights and stand for them. The government is granted responsibility and power to defend these Rights by “We The People”, but if you don’t DO anything other than whine about it, you’ll have nothing left.

    Remember, YOU have a literal duty to preserve liberty.

    • Ted Crawford

      Exactly Donnie! The Founders made it very clear that it was a DUTY and not just our right!

    • DaveH

      What has the term “anarchy” got to do with it, Donnie? Anarchy is simply an absence of Government, and in fact those who advocate Anarchy tend to be projecting their own high morality of the bulk of the population. They may or may not be naive, but they are good people.
      My question to you is “Are you going to throw your morality out the window if we reach a state of No Government?” I certainly wouldn’t. So why would you assume everybody else would?
      The negative connotations of Anarchy have been instilled in us by Propagandists for one reason only — to make us Compliant Followers of Big Government.

      • Donnie

        I say that because it is true. Democracy is mob rule. What do you get with anarchy? Mob rule. They are related, just as Socialism and Communism are.

        Anarchy cannot reliably lead to a peaceful and prosperous society because while most people might be honorable and respectful of each other, many are not. That defense of one man’s Rights when another proceeds to infringe upon them is the purpose of government. It is the collective defense of individual Rights. Obviously, that understanding has been largely lost in today’s public mind, but it is no less true.

        For the record, I am for small government.

      • DaveH

        Read this, Donnie. And don’t worry, it isn’t an effort to convince you that Anarchy is the way to go:
        http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf

        Two things about Anarchy:
        1) It has never existed in its pure form, so how can anybody say what the result would be?
        It is just human nature for the more aggressive in our ranks to take charge, so I can’t imagine us ever to be so fortunate as to have complete self-determination of our lives.
        2) The chaos association with Anarchy has been a purposeful effort on the part of the Propagandists. And obviously it has worked well.

        Too much Government has resulted in actual examples of chaos and poverty throughout history.

      • Ted Crawford

        That was allready tried, it was called Feudalism. It only works for those who are very good fighters or those who can control hugh armies of followers!

      • DaveH

        Kind of like our Government, eh, Ted?

  • css

    The American government and Israel have been planning for more than a decade to bring down seven middle east countries, and Iran will be the last one. It’s all about controlling the OIL fields and has nothing to do with women’s rights or democracy because those heartless despots couldn’t give a damn about people’s rights.

    Netanyahu is a blood thirsty madman who will be even more dangerous when he gets his hands on the nuclear weapons America supplied him with. I hear so much about Israel being our ally, but if we have allies like that, who needs enemies? They’re Zionist thugs who eliminate entire Palestinian families and shoot elderly people and children, or burn them out of their homes. Their goal is a NWO and they’re stopping at nothing to carry it through, which will be controlling the world through slavery, and guess who the slaves will be.

    Every politician in Washington, along with Netanyahu, should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity, and there’s no ‘ands’, ‘ifs’, or ‘buts’ about it. I think our military should be in this country toppling the Washington regime, and allowing American’s the freedoms and liberties they so desperately fought for, are entitled to, and deserve.

    Enough innocent lives have been lost over those tyrant’s greed and the only thing that will stop the slaughtering is to give them a taste of their own medicine – a rope around the neck would look nice on them as it did Saddam. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I’m sick of living in an insane, screwed up world where nobody has any rights except those who make the laws. Enough is enough, and enough of the voter fraud going on in America also.

    • Ted Crawford

      css:
      ” Netanyahu is a bloodthirsty madman, who will be even more dangerous (WHEN) he gets his hands on the nuclear weapons…” It seems you’ve been misinformed. Isreal has had nuclear weapons for several decades. Neither, Netanyahu, nor any of his predecessors have used them in spite of many attacks against them!
      It would seem that your antiSemitism is showing here!

  • http://httpaol.com sean murrey ILLInio

    I mean out .

  • http://httpaol.com sean murrey ILLInio

    The only time we will democracy is when we kick the commies in goverment.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    This sounds like Ron Paul wrote this article. Nothing on this site surprises me. When will you get tired of beating the dead horse or banging your head against the proverbial brick wall. Your article is full of half truths and it is factually incorrect..

    • John

      O.k., So, if you say it is incorrect, where is YOUR line by line write up and rebuke about what is incorrect? Anyone can say someone else article is full of lies and half truth, but until you show where and why you believe it is false, your nothing but full of hot air.

    • DaveH

      When are you going to stop pretending you are a Conservative, Crony Capitalist? You behave just like the Liberals on this board.

  • Power To The People

    Steve E….count another today in VA for DR. Paul! Me too!

  • Power To The People

    REL….the NOW crowd will never critique their God….Obummer. Free contraception is more important.

    Listening to John McCain yesterday in the Senate calling for bombing Syria made me want to puke. You would think he would above all people see the folly in the mess in Iraq and Libya. Is this a ruse to distract us from the mess our country is in due to so many of the votes and actions of long time politicians like himself.

    Hell, we don’t have democracy…it is an illusion. We vote for candidates picked by the establishment and then they do what ever they want while ignoring their constituents, the rule of law and common sense.

    When we are done with the Middle East the people there will hate us even more. That is our current foreign policy.

    • DaveH

      John McCain is the typical Power-hungry Politician who will do whatever it takes to promote his Power. Unfortunately he is my state Senator. Don’t expect him to represent the people, unless we give him no choice.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I would that someone would check McCain for his male hormone levels. That jerk gets more womenish every time he opens his mouth.

    • WIA Ben

      Juan McCain’t, does not represent me, I live in the southeast border of Arizona, the open border mecca for illegals and he doesn’t give a hill of frijoles, it’s about his war mongering demeanor and beliefs. Remember his hero is Teddy “Rosy belt” and he is the living example of Custer. Since the Keating Five I have not voted for this scumbag. Hero! my BIA.

  • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

    The wars we have fought for democracy , fighting for peace This has the same value as fornicating for virginity, As long as we have the type of politics that rule our nation there will continue to be war..

    • cawun cents

      Well stated.

  • Corsica

    Why is the word “American” not capitalized in this article? The author seems to have a bug up his a–.

    • Sirian

      Now just how “KNIT PICKY” do you want to be Corsica? Obviously you have a “KNIT PICKY” bug up you butt too. . . Hmmmm

      • DaveH

        Sorry Sirian. I’m not trying to nit-pick on you, but this is an interesting tidbit of knowledge:
        http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nit1.htm

      • Sirian

        That is a good one DaveH – interesting, especially in relation to monkeys habits, although I should’ve used the term “fly-speckers”. I’ll keep that in mind. :)

      • revnowwhilewecan

        Lol…Dave! Nice one!

  • GRusling

    Democracy can be described in two ways; “Organized Chaos” and/or the “Tyranny of the Majority.” I’m not even SLIGHTLY interested in either!

    I much prefer what our Founders established in America, which is a “Constitutional Republic” and I’m really tired of so-called “conservatives” trying to make it into a democracy, so KNOCK IT OFF! If you don’t know the difference between the two, I suggest you educate yourself, and in the meantime JUST SHUT UP because you’re not helping matters at all…

    • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

      intellectual brow beating;; you surly are a progressive lib; always smarter than anyone else and always telling everyone what they should be doing;; you are part of the problem not part of the solution;; democracy, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people; exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representatives usually involving periodic elections.. republic,a government having a chief of state [president], a government in which supreme power resides in the citizens entitled to vote, elected officials are responsible to them by governing according to law. I may not be as smart as you think you are but I do know how to source my information.

      • David in MA

        Robert E. Lee~~~~
        May I suggest you go look in a mirror
        to see if there is the word “STUPID”
        written on your forehead?

      • John

        David, just look at his previous posts it says all, don’t sink down to the level of a troll.

      • speedle

        Rusling is right about the Constitutional Republic. The founding fathers lined it all up that way to prevent the exact thing that is going on right now in so called “democratic societies”. I don’t know Rusling’s political leanings (other than to surmise from his questionable comment about “so called conservatives”), but he is right on this particular issue.

        True “Democracies” inevitably result in the worst kind of corruption, and can only fail in the long run.

  • Jim Bandinelli

    One country for which it stands, one nation, under God, with LIBERTY and justice for all. Hm… no mention of democracy here, it’s not with Democracy and justice for all. But I speaking to choir so it’s kinda lost on you all!

  • Sirian

    We were founded as a Republic, not a democracy! Yet as of today and many decades before we have been spoon fed the lie that we are a “true democracy”. Such blatant lies to us all. Our involvement in the battles in the ME have been worthwhile for one reason – elimination of possible threats to our nation, yet we have fallen from grace as a Republic into the pit of self destruction via the ever present pronunciation by politician after politician, professor after professor drilling into our heads that we have the “grandest democracy on the face of earth”. Once again, blatant lies that have mislead the flock, as politicians so view us, for nearly a hundred years.

    • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

      Democratic Republic to be exact.

      • Tyler Durden

        Incorrect. America is a Constitutional Republic.

      • John

        It seems Robert has to go back to school.

      • DaveH

        Guys, let’s not quibble over semantics. It doesn’t matter what we call it. What matters is that over the last 150 years it has been subverted by our Power-hungry Leaders and their Cronies.

    • Ted Crawford

      Tyler;
      We were founded as a Constitutional Republic. The Civil War transformed us into a Democratic Republic, Woodrow Wilson launched us into a simple Democracy that has been deteriorating ever since. With the current administration in office we have begun a freefall that will land us in a Socialism, in the best case and a Dictatorship in the worse case!

      • revnowwhilewecan

        It’s no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of world banks~ Ron Paul

        Paul/Napolitano 2012!

      • Ted Crawford

        Unfortunatly revnowwhiewecan, while Dr. Paul has many very good ideas on fiscal policy and even some on foreign affairs and National defence, his isolationist, I know, I know, he’s a noninterventionalist, ” A Rose by any other name”, views would prove even more dangerous for our future security, even survival, than Barack Obama himself!

    • Sirian

      Exactly DaveH, Exactly!!

  • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

    where is the outrage libtards?? you oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers; but you support killing children. wow is that SOCRATIC????

    • dwight

      a person who will kill a unborn child would also rape an maam one

  • Steve E

    I am voting for Ron Paul today in the VA primary. Take that, Establishment! You can’t fool me. I’m not one of your useful idiots.

    • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

      good for you;; it is nice to live in a free country ; unlike Russia, Putin for four more?????Ron Paul will help build the conservative platform;; he is great with the fiscal things.

    • revnowwhilewecan

      YESSSSSSS!

  • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

    I think the Now/ Nags think sharia law will never be the law of the land in America;; yet that is exactly what THEY ARE promoting; [4] four more years of Obam the Imam and they will see;; if he can give them FREE BITRH CONTROL PILLS he can kill their babies[INFANTICIDE] IS WHAT HE SUPPORTS. sponsored a bill as a state senator in Illinois protecting the docs doing the murders.

  • http://mozilla Robert E. Lee

    free to chose their own style of government ;; which for some reason always turns out to be RADICAL ISLAM;; IS THIS by design or intimidation ??? Do the males in these societies force their ideology upon the women? Do women even have a vote or say in their own destiny ;; where are the librocratic women in America, why are these NOW fanatics not outraged at Obam the Imam’s foreign policies?

    • DaveH

      It is the natural order of things for Leaders to grow their power at the peoples’ expense. Don’t expect Islamic Leaders to break that mold.
      It’s also natural for Sociopaths to strive for positions of power:
      http://www.whale.to/b/callahan1.html

      The few like Ron Paul, who truly do represent the citizens rather than themselves, are rare Politicians.

    • DaveH

      The only way for Freedom-loving people to break that mold is to get educated about the reality of politics. And it isn’t easy. Most of us have been Propagandized since childhood and are afraid to even seek the painful truth. Read this article to better understand the process:
      http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_3.pdf

      Each of us who has the time to do the reading should do so and educate as many relatives and friends as we can. It is our only chance. Without a majority of educated Americans the Government Leaders win.

  • revnowwhilewecan

    When we remove one regime for another, this does NOT bring about peace in the ME as the policy makers would have you believe. One only has to look at the history there to know. Besides, if democracy is our TRUE intent, then why do our greatest ME allies not have one? And please, don’t tell me that innocent people are not getting killed in those regimes because if you believe that, then you are naive and you do not believe the people of Syria.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCB9Kq6IspY&feature=related

  • revnowwhilewecan

    Unfortunately, until we not allow lobbiyist’s to buy our politicans, our “democracy” is an illusion. Sure, we flock to the polls and cast our vote for who we think will do the best job. But this is only after the big sponsors, who fun both sides, have who it is they want in place! This is why they fear Ron Paul so much. He stands to take away everything they represent. He can’t be bought and this is the reason the GOP won’t get behind him even tho his is the only one to have a chance against Obama. It doesn’t make political sense to back anyone else, unless of course, they have another agenda, which they clearly do.

  • s c

    Democracy is for politicians and the zombies they control. While we can’t get along without a government, it’s obvious that concentrated greed and various forms of paranoia can gut a nation better than any invading army. Not being able to tell the difference between a friend and a domestic enemy makes life complicated.
    We were warned about political parties and democracy long ago. The weak link in government is career politicians who thrive on careers they don’t deserve. Couple that with no easy way to get rid of them, and you have quite a formula for disaster. In effect, Washington has been for many generations the political version of organized crime.
    No crime family ever had it as easy as our ‘elected wannabe masters.’
    I’d be ecstatic to have a real republic again. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for our elected vermin to go and fight those ‘noble’ wars they love to give us in the name of freedom. I suspect the worthless SOBs and DOBs wouldn’t any part of war. And they could take their Fed bunkies with them.

    • Warrior

      I would say the head “cheerleaders” give themselves better protection than the boys and girls they send to do their bidding.

  • Vicki

    The OP writes

    Why Can’t americans Have Democracy?

    It is not that we can’t have democracy it is that we DON”T want it. Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Democracy was well on display in Egypt last year when I watched on TV as about 15 people got together and voted on what to do with a truck. They voted 14-1 to tear it apart and burn it. So they did.

    Our forefathers were well aware of the problem of democracy and they did everything they reasonably could to keep it from our shores.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

    • edgee

      The US was established by the founders as a REPUBLIC,not a democracy in order to preserve individual rights and not have mob rule. We abandoned the republic some time ago and now have mob rule!

      • Tom W.

        “In a nation of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its’ examples. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
        1928 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis
        In my opinion what see goin’ on here is a systematic take down of the Islamic nations. As Paul pointed out Eygpt, and Libya are both now in chaos! These have in no means been American assaults, they have been NWO assaults!!! The biggest obstacle to the NWO vision, even bigger than the US is Islam! Think about it Islam has no place in the “Blue Blood” vision! Right now Islam is serving as useful idiots to the NWO gameplan in causing world-wide chaos. Which will be next, Syria or Iran?! These aren’t free countries by any means and in my personal opinion, we, the USofA, should be trying to bring to ALL people what we SUPPOSEDLY enjoy, please stop and consider that we are the only nation on the face of this Earth that was ever founded on the principle that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (The three words our president had trouble remembering when quoting this line, although to his credit, he finally did get it right when addressing our troops in Afghanistan shortly after Thanksgiving the year before last.) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That’s not by the power of some king, queen, chairman, czar, dictator, imam, act of congress, or senate, but by our Creator! Which makes these rights undeniable! Is there a higher order to be sought? I think not! The New World Order won’t know anything about We the People, but will be of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites. The rest of us that they allow to live will simply be their slaves. Wanna see their agenda in a lapidary nutshell, in their materia sacra? Simply read the “Georgia Guidestones.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojyBTAuv8Uc) I know what St. Patrick would have done. Study “Crom Curauch” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3joJU4gvs) to find out, and the true story behind St. Pattys’ Day and why it’s more than a worthy holiday to be celebrated.
        JESUS IS COMING!!! You’d BETTER be ready!

      • Tom W.

        Oh, and I almost forgot, Demascus, Syria is the world oldest still-inhabited city in the world! It’s COMPLETE destruction is one of the unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible!!!

        Isaiah 17:1, (KJV)
        “The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.”

      • mark

        Right, the good ol’ days of the American Republic, when slavery flourished and women and non-property holders could not vote or run for office. When rich white guys called all the shots. This has always been a libertarian dream and reveals the strong anti-democratic bias of libertarians. If they had it their way, there would still be elections all right but with high property qualifications that would lock out minorities, the poor, and the struggling working class.

      • http://liberty Tony

        To edgee:
        You talk about ” mob rule”. Well, if the Tea partiers get into control, that’s exactly what we’ll have. Actually, it’ll be lynch mob rule. Thanks!!

      • Wyatt

        AMEN ! That statement says it all . The great difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic , the Minority governs according to the best interests and wishes of the majority . And in a Democracy , the Majority are governed by which ever Minority can scream the loudest .

        America was founded as a Republic with a Democratic form of government . The term Democratic being used to denote that the citizens of America voted and elected their leaders . That is Democracy and nothing more . Sadly , certain individuals have chosen to corrupt the Party bearing that name in order to turn America into some sort of Utopian Society , saying that everyone should be guaranteed a share of the pie . Sorry , the only guarantee America carries and offers is the right to fail ! No right of sucess or riches . That said , America also guarantees you have the right to suceed if you work hard for what you desire .

        Simply put , America and Freedom takes a lot of work , you’ve got to want it bad or it will pass you by !

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000583956517 Dennis Woods

        The U.S. Constitution is a social compact among men, as opposed to a civil covenant with God to rule according to His law. Because our Constitution left God completely out of the picture, we are left with a government “having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (II Tim 3:5). The structure/skeleton of the Constitution is Republican in form, but it has a democratic heart. This is because its very authority is derived from the will of the majority (we the people) as defined by John Locke in Chapter 8 of his “First Treatise of Government.”

        Again, there is no appeal whatsoever to the governing authority of God (Rom 13:1) in the establishment of the United States government of 1787. Thus, as the article so eloquently states, the American democracy was doomed to tyranny from its inception. More on this at http://www.America-Betrayed-1787.com

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Yes Dennis. You are right and all human forms of government are doomed to eventually fail the people.

      • Vigilant

        Dennis Woods says, “Because our Constitution left God completely out of the picture, we are left with a government “having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

        Not so. The Constitution is based on, even dependent upon, the Declaration of Independence for its authority. It is Jefferson’s statement of Creator-endowed natural rights that underpins the Constitution, and it came from Locke’s Second Treatise, not the first. Lincoln understood, and commented upon, the fact that the Declaration was the picture of the “Apple” while the Constitution was the frame around the picture.

        The Founders gave us a Constitutional republic that relies heavily upon a sense of morality and mirrors the Christian principles of individual freedom, but does not demand Christian worship of its citizenry. And it was created with full knowledge that if those Christian principles were abandoned, we would eventually end up with the tyranny of secular humanism that we see so prevalent today.

        It did not create a Christian Kingdom for good reasons, but it never “left God completely out of the picture.”

      • Vigilant

        mark, today’s communist, says, “Right, the good ol’ days of the American Republic, when slavery flourished and women and non-property holders could not vote or run for office. When rich white guys called all the shots. This has always been a libertarian dream and reveals the strong anti-democratic bias of libertarians. If they had it their way, there would still be elections all right but with high property qualifications that would lock out minorities, the poor, and the struggling working class.”

        Rarely do we see such a display of ignorance and downright lies. Are you sure you didn’t mean to post this screed on a leftist site?

        First, you assume that there have been no amendments to the Constitution. The ills you rant about were corrected by majority vote of the American public long ago. My ancestors held slaves….does that mean I advocate slavery?

        Secondly, you are appallingly dense when it comes to Libertarian philosophy. If you put totalitarianism on the left of the scale, and anarchy on the right, you’d understand that Libertarianism is to the right of conservatism and advocates even less government.

        You are so blinded by Marxism and the hatred spewed by communism that you can’t even call a spade a spade, nor will you ever.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Hey Vigilant, you came down pretty hard on old edge, but he probably needed it. You’re right about his rant though.

      • Tom W.

        Very well said Vig! As a matter of fact there is an arguement to be had whether or not the God of nature and of nature’s laws and the God of Abraham, Issaic, and Jacob are one in the same but I don’t think that now is the time or place. But at the same time we are the only nation ever formed on the principle that our freedoms came from our Creator and thus were solemnly guaranteed by Devine Right! Think about that! The only nation ever to have existed with that FACT as the backbone of all it’s promises!!!

        “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.”
        ― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

      • Marten

        Democracy makes no allowance for righteous Leadership…

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000583956517 Dennis Woods

        I stand corrected: it was Locke’s Second Treatise. But I can’t really agree with Vig statement that, “The Constitution is based on, even dependent upon, the Declaration of Independence for its authority. It is Jefferson’s statement of Creator-endowed natural rights that underpins the Constitution, and it came from Locke’s Second Treatise, not the first.”

        The Constitution clearly derives its governing authority from “we the people” who “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” This is pure Lockean social contract theory that has nothing to do with the authority of God or his law, such as we find in many of the colonial charters. There is no substantive mention of the Declaration in the Constitution except for the statement that it was written 11 or 12 years afterward. So what?

        Even if the Constitution is based on the Declaration, again so what? Jefferson was by his own admission a unitarian and a Epicurean, so when he refers to “nature and nature’s God” he has a completely different meaning from the Christian understanding. The Bible declares that Jesus Christ is “King of kings” in the sense that He expects and demands that the nations of earth conform their legal systems to His law as found in Old and New Testaments. Jefferson as a unitarian wanted nothing to do with that

        God promises earlthly blessing to any nation that will base its legal system on the law of Moses (cf. Dt. 28). This applies to all the nations, for which ancient Israel was the example. As Solomon prayed in II Chroniicles 6:33, “…in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee, as do Thy people Israel…”

      • Vigilant

        Dennis, I understand you to be a man with virtuous intentions and a person of good will. And I salute you for that.

        However, please allow me to clarify. Most of the major Founders were Deists but attended Christian services throughout their lives. Of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, only Adams was a “straightforward” Christian in belief.

        Jefferson’s personal beliefs tended to a Deism in which he considered Christ to be a great man and prophet, but he rejected the supernatural aspects of all “revealed” religions such as Christianity. The Jefferson Bible, as it’s known, was a New Testament in which Jefferson excised everything relating to supernatural events, but kept the supremely wise counsel of Christ intact.

        The terms “Creator” and “Nature’s God” were purely Deistic words not used in the Christian writings or services. However, Jefferson was not writing of his own particular feelings in the Declaration, he was expressing the universal notion and belief in God. Never was there an intent to establish a Deist nation, and Jefferson was not trying to pull off a trick on the people.

        As a matter of perspective, Jefferson lifted Locke’s own words from the Second Treatise when he penned the famous phrase “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Locke had said “life, liberty and property,” but Jefferson edited it because slaves were considered property and he wanted no slaveholder to ever rationalize ownership by pointing to the Declaration.

        That being said, the famous phrase was by and large Locke’s own, and Locke was a Christian. The doctrine of Creator-endowed Natural Rights fits equally well with Christian theology and Deism.

        I beg to differ with you on your perception of Lockean social contract theory. Locke was a good Christian and would not have divorced his philosophy of Natural Law from the authority of God or his law. On the contrary, Locke understood Natural Law to be the construct and gift of the Christian God. The Enlightenment produced scholars who believed that God could be known through reason alone, but that did not “shut out” by any means the Christians.

        Interesting discussion.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000583956517 Dennis Woods

        You make some good points, Vigilante, but I think that Locke’s Christianity is problematic. It is true that he sprang from a Puritan family, but he became Latitudinarian in adulthood. If memory serves, that involved laxity of doctrine and tolerance, of which our modern diversity movement is a more extreme variety. He is after all known to many as “the father of the Enlightenment” I don’t thnk that is a title that an evangelical Christian should get too excited about.

        Too often these discussions end up as a “war of quotations,” which can be misleading. Even Mr. Obama has made some very Christian sounding statements, which could be misleading to careless historians 200 years from now.

        We have to look carefully at what they gave us. Bear in mind that there is no evidence in the primary documents that the drafters of the Constitution of 1787 were deliberating on the basis of a Biblical worldview. Franklin’s prayer request is the only substantative reference to scripture in the entire 4 volumes of “Notes From the Federal Convention.” The Constitution, of course, makes no refernce to the Bible, nor do the Federalist Papers..

        On the contrary, Article VI makes “this Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made …. the supreme law of the land.” In other words, all the manmade laws enacted in the United States since 1787 are the highest law of the land. The Bible doesn’t even get honorable mention. The Founding Federalists thus reaped the wind and we their posterity are now reaping the whirlwind.

        Micah 6:16 describes a similar situation in Isreal, where “The statutes of Omri and all the works of the hosue of Ahab are observed; and in their devices you walk. Therefore, I will give you up for destruction…..”

      • http://gravatar.com/awkingsley AWKingsley

        You are making me uncomfortable. Jesus Christ was an enlightened man, and the early Christians were mystics, The point is that our Founding Fathers developed the best system of government for freedom, prosperity, and morality that could be obtained. Morality is at its best in a country when the Federal Government does not pay for vice or the consequences or vice, nor does it contribute to the general corruption by paying for programs that maintain that corruption. Also, may I remind you that over the last 30 years when Christians were trying to legislate morality, morality in our nation has declined markedly. The major reason Christians are trying to legislate morality is that the Socialism they are interested in promoting produces immorality and is and of itself immoral, since it depends on theft by the Federal Government. The Evangelical Christians need to again start obeying God’s Laws instead of playing games. Compared to the people of today, Our Founding Fathers were moral giants. It isn’t their system of government that was at fault; it is the corruption by the American people of our government and of themselves – lack of obedience to God’s Laws.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        AWKingsley “The point is that our Founding Fathers developed the best system of government for freedom, prosperity, and morality that could be obtained. Morality is at its best in a country when the Federal Government does not pay for vice or the consequences or vice, nor does it contribute to the general corruption by paying for programs that maintain that corruption.” So very true.
        As to the moral decline in this nation. I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem isn’t socialism or communism though but the heart of the people. This country has the president that the generally immoral and corrupt people wanted so that they could have it their way. There may not be enough good people left to reverse this trend peacefully.

      • http://gravatar.com/awkingsley AWKingsley

        Socialism/Communism pay for vice and the consequences of vice, as well as maintenance of corruption. Some political systems guarantee morality and freedom; others guarantee moral degradation and slavery at the hands of the St\ate. Our Republican Democracy, as it was conceived by Our Founding Fathers and for many years after its inception, guaranteed morality and freedom. We no longer have a constitutional government, and we no longer have the freedom and morality. The two go hand in hand. .

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        AWKingsley, the constitution… our politicians lips sing praises to it but their heart is far from it. Much of our country’s population has become licentious and lazy and this is reflected by the people they elect. We always have had to contend with this problem and always will but today it seems rampant and sometimes I wonder just how long things will go this way before something happens to begin to swing it back the other way? Previous generations have warned us of this slide toward immorality but their voices seem so distant now as to be almost inaudible. I don’t look forward to what I believe is coming with a glad heart but I know that it will have to happen. People need to be shocked back into reality. Live well and prosper.

      • http://gravatar.com/awkingsley AWKingsley

        Very good! Thank you!

    • 101stRECON68

      DEMOCRACY=MOB RULE

      • Tom W.

        Pure anarchy RECON!

    • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

      Vicki, you’re right. Our founding fathers eventually threw out the articles of confederation in favor of our constitution due to the problem of “:Factions”. They recognized that with a democracy there would be minority and majority factions that could could easily sway the government or that could easily deteriorate into a constant bickering or even a violent mob. They decided against democracy in favor of a republic that was not administered by direct popular vote but through elected representatives that would legislate the rule of law on behalf of the people. The constitution, which is supposed to be a very stable (statue) set of laws, was set up to limit our type of government so that it would be difficult for “factions” to unduly influence the law making process. And yet the people of this country sing the praises of our democracy. Our founding fathers knew that a democracy was one step removed for either anarchy or tyranny with tyranny being the most dangerous result. So why does our government promote democracies around the world? I have to conclude that they, those in charge, are looking forward to a day of world wide anarchy that will turn into a world wide tyranny.
      The only way to stop this pernicious slide to slavery is for us to cry out against democracy and to cry out to re=establish our once great republic.

      • Vigilant

        Please revisit a good historical explanation of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation were ultimately discarded. It had little to do with considerations of rampant democracy. It had everything to do with the factionalism you speak of, but not with regards to democratic institutions.

        The Constitutional Convention, as it’s become known, was not originally a convention to create a new constitution, it was convened merely to tweak the Articles of Confederation. Why? Because the Articles left too much power in the hands of the states.

        The central government of the new nation was in a precarious condition. It could levy funds from the states to conduct certain business and to try and present a monolithic diplomatic face to the world. It could do neither, as states were spotty or completely remiss in sending funds to the government. States were of the belief that they could defend their own borders and create their own rules without regard to the general welfare.

        Interstate trade rules and standards were not uniform between the squabbling states, and no standards of currency valuation existed. Moreover, some had incurred debts from the Revolution that were impossible to repay. Contrary to your assertion, there was no risk of minority and majority factions holding sway in a government that had little to no power to begin with.

        These and other reasons were the motivators for creating a stronger government, and after much debate and consultation, the Founders crafted a near-miraculous plan of government, the first of its kind in history. It gave birth to a republic that finely balanced the sovereignty of the people (a novel concept) against the needs for central government to maintain a national defense, to standardize currencies and interstate commerce, etc.

        It also attempted to minimize the possibility that groups of states would band together in alliances for common defense and thus split the new nation asunder. As history would show, sectional differences and unresolved constitutional problems would prove otherwise.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Vigilant, you are mostly right about “factions” not being capable of doing much at the time with the existing weak government and yes the country was in debt and the states would not help to pay the bill. The states were some of the factions that they had to address at that time. The articles didn’t contain anything that could force the states to comply with a request by the central government to pay up. It was the existing factions, the states, that were the problem. and that’s what created the need to correct existing problems of the day, as you pointed out, which eventually led to the articles being completely discarded in favor of something new that recognized the right of the states to govern themselves but required them to remain united and gave the federal government the right to levy and collect taxes to pay it’s debts to form armies and so on but, the biggest problem facing them wasn’t the mechanics: providing armies and so on, it was dealing with the nature of man.

        “By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. ”
        Federalist 10
        James Madison

        What part of this doesn’t address the idea of people coming together and voicing themselves through democratic means? Sounds democratic to me.

        Also you helped me prove the point:

        “It gave birth to a republic that finely balanced the sovereignty of the people (a novel concept) against the needs for central government to maintain a national defense, to standardize currencies and interstate commerce, etc. It also attempted to minimize the possibility that groups of states would band together in alliances (factions, majority rule?) for common defense and thus split the new nation asunder. As history would show, sectional differences and unresolved constitutional problems would prove otherwise.”

        Also, I fully agree that the government they created was beautiful and I feel that it is what we should have today. It’s as good as man can make it.

      • Vigilant

        katrael59ganaiden,

        We are in agreement. I understand now that we never disagreed, it was a matter that needed clarification, and you’ve furnished it.

        I highly respect your contributions. You are a student of history, as am I, and you have an abiding respect for this Great Experiment. Welcome to the forum!

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        I love this land and what it was founded upon. Live long and prosper Vigilant

    • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

      Mark, this problem of slavery and women’s rights existed before our republic came to be and would have existed with any type of government that we would have finally settled on. Just think about it: the King of England hadn’t done anything to stop the slave trade or to establish the rights of women. The greatest thing about our republic is that this kind of abuse would eventually be settled through this type of government, a republic…just like it eventually happened.
      The problem with mob rule (democracy) is that today the mob is for you and tomorrow it’s not. You might be safe now but your safety isn’t built into a stable law that comes with a republic but instead is vested in the power of people who have the ability to constantly change the law to suit a more popular whim.

      • mark

        Mob Rule and democracy are not the same thing. They are in fact, in most aspects, direct opposites. Democracy embodies peacefully going to the voting booth and electing representatives to act in our name and interests. Mob rule was actually most prominent in the American South and the West when mobs of majority whites would beat, lynch and burn African Americans, Mexicans, and Indians, on accusations alone, without fair trial or due process. That is mob rule and if you ever were one of its terrified victims, you would understand this and not go throwing the term around loosely with no historical understanding of its consequences.

        We have only lived under mob rule in this country in local circumstances when angy mobs took the law into their own hands in the absence of legitimate government and the presence of officials who violated their oaths of office. For instance in the South white sheriffs looked on and laughed when local white gangs dragged terrified blacks from their jail cells to murder them. This also occurred unfortunately when white officials giving into majority racism interned Japanese Americans in 1941-1945. An overwhelming number of Americans, especially conservatives, supported this unconstitutional policy because it was not aimed at them but at a racial minority. People of color in this country have long known that the only time the white majority will ever speak out against constitutional violations is when it affects them, the white majority. When racial minorities’ rights are violated the white majority does nothing, says nothing, and generally cheers. This is espeically true with white conservatives who revel in the violation of minority rights, but cry like babies when they have to take off their shoes at the airport. Oh the horror of such an outrage compared to a minor problem like being black and dragged through the streets of Jasper Texas, chained to a pick-up until your death. No Tea Party ever has or ever will speak up against that mob rule and in favor of that black citizen. This, in fact, is the kind of mob rule many conservatives approve of. It keeps the lower orders “in their place.”

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Mark you’re right that those events were mob rule. However, it was the “faction” with the greatest amount of power that wielded that power over a people who outnumbered them and were too weak and ignorant to do anything about it. That still encompasses a democracy because there is no stable moral law to prevent such abuse in a democracy as the law can change at the whim of the people and the founders understood that a minority faction could be just as evil as a majority faction. They understood that there would be almost an exponential growth in the body and complexity of law if a pure democracy were to be relied on for governance so they tried to set up a form of a republic that would eliminate most of the power wielded by factions within the entire nation as a whole so that the abusive nature of factions could be restrained to smaller regions. It worked for a while but has finally given way to the worst faction of all, carrier politicians.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Mark one other thing, in a democracy the people make the law. That’s what we witnessed in the south. In a republic the people elect representatives who pass legislation within the framework of law that restricts their ability to act solely on their own judgement.

      • Vicki

        mark says:

        Mob Rule and democracy are not the same thing. They are in fact, in most aspects, direct opposites. Democracy embodies peacefully going to the voting booth and electing representatives to act in our name and interests.

        So having the mob peacefully take everything is better than the mob violently taking everything? Explain why that is better.

        Go to this link and start watching at about 5 min in.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

        It will clearly explain why our founders chose a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic rather than democracy.

      • http://gravatar.com/katrael59ganaiden katrael59ganaiden

        Get him Vicki, Mark deserves it.

    • Jerry Marshall

      And in the meantime, our ELECTED Officials continue to try and ram ‘democracy’ down our throats!
      Unfortunately, the uneducated SHEEPLE of this Nation continue to believe that our form of Government is based on ‘democracy,’ and not on what it really was based; a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
      WE, THE PEOPLE need to FIGHT BACK and RAISE OUR VOICES to stop this misdirection!

    • BERNADINE

      just what is democrocy. those people want the freedom we had under our constitution.
      why is hillery clinton not stoped from interfering.with those government???. is the American people that bilind they cannot see what she is doing. and our own GOVERNMENT elected officials. voting us into the united Nations in the first place.
      Can we get out of the UN ???? I AM NOT EDUCATED. BUT I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING I WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THIS COUNTRY INTO THE UN. TO HAVE THEM DICTATE. WHAT MY COUNTRY CAN AND CANNOT DO. mAY GOD BESS AMERICA.
      BUT HE CAN NOT BLESS US WE THRU HIM OUT AND NOW WE HAVE THE DEVIL’S ADICATE AS RULER OF OUR COUNTRY. AND OUR gRAND CHILREN AND GREAT GRAND-CHILDREN WILL BE SLAVE. THANKS TO OUR SO CALL EDUCATED LEADERS.

    • jag57

      Actually, Egypt and Libya were classic examples of the “pincher strategy,” where those that want control of a country, like Muslim Brotherhood and al Queda, foment protest and revolution against the government. In these cases, Obama, wanting radical Muslims in control of Mid East, or North African countries, made sure the governments fell. This is the same strategy Glen Beck calls Top down, Bottom up, Inside out. Regardless of whether you loved or hated these leaders, I’m here to tell you, these are the best leaders these countries will have for a long, long time, unfortunately, the same goes for Iraq. Now, it looks like Syria is next, but if our “community organizer in chief” goes to war with Syria, which poses no threat to America, he should be impeached.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom