Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

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

  • 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.

    • 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.” ( I know what St. Patrick would have done. Study “Crom Curauch” ( 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 !

      • 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

        • 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.

        • 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…

      • 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.

      • 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…..”

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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 State. 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. .

          • 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.

          • AWKingsley

            Very good! Thank you!

    • 101stRECON68


      • Tom W.

        Pure anarchy RECON!

    • 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.

        • 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


        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!

      • katrael59ganaiden

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

    • 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.”

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

        • 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!


      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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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://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:

      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:

      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.

  • 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.

  • 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


  • 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

  • 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

      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!!

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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:

      • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Power To The People

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

  • 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.

  • sean murrey ILLInio

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

  • sean murrey ILLInio

    I mean out .

  • 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

      ” 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!

  • Donnie


    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:

        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?

  • 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!

  • 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.
      That is all.

    • 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.

  • 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.

        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?

  • 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”

  • 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

      ” 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!!!

      • 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.

        • 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,…..”

    • 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

      • 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.

  • rich

    .CNN just doesn’t get it. They celebrate as the foundation of anti-Americanism is built in the Arab countries.
    1. Mob rule creates chaos, not democracies or republics.
    2. Chaos creates a climate for the most radical element to take over.

  • BigBadJohn

    “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 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.


    • DaveH

      It isn’t just Republicans, BigBad. Both major parties are infested with career Politicians who will do whatever it takes to retain their Power. They are parasites on the countries’ citizens.

      • BigBadJohn

        I Agree Which is why people need to get beyond the two party mind set.

      • katrael59ganaiden

        Dave H. you’re right and this problem: that the politicians would become the very factions that the founders tried so carefully to avoid has indeed become the tyrannical force that knows no party affiliation.

  • Tazio2013


    The GOP neocon puppet-masters are terrified, especially when Republican crowds at televised debates cheer Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy remarks because this threatens their control over US foreign policy in what was formerly their secure home turf. Try as they might the media has not been able to destroy the Ron Paul Campaign.

    It appears the mainstream media elites in the US may also worry about their future ability to control public opinion and elections in America. In the last week we have seen MSNBC, on the left, purge Pat Buchanan from the network and Fox News, on the right, eliminate Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch” after both expressed opinions and views that threaten the political institutions, control and goals of the power elite. The first question asked must be: Why now rather than later as, after all, both men have expressed their anti-establishment views for years without repercussions?

    I believe the answer is the growing power of alternative media and the successful educational effort of the Ron Paul Campaign, both of which use the Internet to get their freedom message out. The establishment media primarily exists to defend the establishment; the growing readership of alternative news and opinion sites are making their job increasingly difficult. When you add in the growing numbers of Paul Campaign supporters who appear to now be effectively immune to the power elite propaganda, the media elites have a real problem.

    • DaveH

      Very Good, Tazio.

  • Dee

    Exceptional article. To the point and truthful.

  • dwight

    i think its already to late sitting here typing helps nothing.mabey its the end vote your heart be ready for anything

  • FreedomFighter

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

    Obama sure does have his “Jack-boot” on the throat of America, Mr Wilson. My only question is

    “How long will it take for us to remove said “Jack-boot”

    Riots this summer for sure guys, Barry “Jack-boot” Obama and the minions of chaos are at work for his election. We certainly live in “interesting times” (codewords).

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • Mark in LA

    The problem with Paul Craig Roberts is his field of view is so narrow. WE get stuff like this{

    For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as “bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.”

    How about for a half-century Washington has been spewing this same lie for all our proxie wars and all our interference in other countries internal affairs. Does he really think our constant invasions and funding of proxie armies in Central America was all about democracy? Was Vietnam about democracy? Roberts doesn’t seem to get it that America has been doing this so long, it has infected our DNA and we actually think we have the right to do these things.

    • Mark in LA

      Sorry even my time line was too narrow. We were invading countries in the 20′s so it should be the last century.

      • DaveH

        Try since the 1860s.

      • mark

        No, it goes back way before the 1860s, DaveH. The United States was an imperialist nation from day one. Even before the revolution, Americans were an expansionist people invading the Indians nations and stealing their land through the overwhelming use of force and violence. Our great Founding Slaveholders thoroughly approved of this policy. The revolutionaries invaded Canada in 1775, followed by numerous expeditions deep into the Indian nations. In 1812-1813, the United States invaded Canada again but were eventually defeated in their war of conquest. In 1817-18 the United States invaded Spanish Florida eventually forcing the Spanish to sell it to us under the threat of future attacks. The US. took over Texas through violence and armed conflict in the 1830s. All the lands of the Indians east of the Mississippi were confiscated unconstitutionally under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. In 1846-48, in a ruthless land grab and war of aggression, Washington stole the entire Southwest and California from Mexico in as sure and deliberate a war of territorial conquest as Hitler’s invasion of Poland. All the land that Americans live on today was stolen through terror and violence. Libertarians like to talk about hard truths, but not this one. After Mexico in 1855, William Walker, one of the famous filbusters having invaded Baja California earlier, invaded and conquered Nicaragua. Narciso Lopez, another filibuster twice invaded Cuba to make it like Walker’s Nicaragua, a a slave state to be annexed to the Union. Constant expansion and invasions are all a part of America’s unchangeable DNA. Americans never have stopped and never will until our massive empire collapses as have all past empires in history.

        But this won’t mean our destruction. England was not destroyed by the loss of its empire. It simply had to adjust to being a poorer, less powerful, but more moral nation. I suspect this will be our fate as well.

      • katrael59ganaiden

        Yes, you’re right Mark, but the original founders had no desire to strip this vast land of the inhabitants that they found here. There was always room for a co-existence if it had been in the heart of the people to do that.
        It is indeed a travesty that has been delivered onto the heads of many people by a people full of greed. And I might add that the people we found here were themselves not above greed. It’s a human condition that can’t be eliminated but could possibly be controlled and a democracy can’t control it; it takes stable laws enforced by stable people.

      • Mark in LA

        Well the issue was using the banner of “democracy” for the “people we are liberating”. We never said we were liberating the Indians or the Mexicans. Unlike when we invaded places like the Domical Republic or Nicaragua.

        While the expansion across the continent was an out-and-out land grab. some are not as cut and dried as you would think. The Mexicans actually wanted the war with the US. We got Texas because Texas was annexed after it declared independence. Blame Santa Ana for that. He abrogated the Mexican Constitution that caused the various rebellions in Mexico that led to Texas independence.

        The Mexicans actually had the bigger and better (European trained) army at the start of the war. The Mexican leadership was giddy about the prospects of getting back Texas as well as most of the Louisianna territory. It just didn’t work out that way for them so don’t blame the US on that one. In addition, the land was no more Mexico’s than it was the US’s. It was Indian land that few Mexicans would want to live in.That was Mexico’s problem they didn’t have a large enough population to hold onto the place and they hated the Indians more than the Anglos. They never did think to give them Mexican citizenship and weaponry to hold onto the land in some sort of federal system of autonomous Indian lands under federal oversight.

      • DaveH

        I share your sentiment about becoming a more moral nation, Mark (plain).
        But I have to ask — Where do you come up with this kind of crap –> “Libertarians like to talk about hard truths, but not this one”?
        You made that up out of whole cloth, Mark.

      • DaveH

        In fact, Mark (plain), if you’d pull your Liberal head out and look around you’d see that right here on this board I posted this link:
        Which contains this statement –
        “If the Republican party was so sensitive about racial discrimination in the post-war era it would not have sent General Sherman out west just three months after the war ended to commence a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians. The very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states-led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan-mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America”.

        You’re fast losing any credibility you might have had, plain Mark.

  • sj

    Is this yet the Land of the Free and the Home of the brave? Has anyone read the work of Peter Beter ? google it . He among others tried to warn us. There are a few brave ones here but the masses are cowardly sheep that will live or die by the efforts of those few.
    We are and have been living under tyranny for decades. Some of us are just starting to realize it.

  • 101stRECON68

    Wow, spoken like a good little Nazi. Whenever I hear someone use the term “Zionist”, I do not listen to anything else they have to say. Those poor little Palestinans, oh how sorry we should feel for them. Bull feathers! I remember those slimeballs dancing in the streets when the twin towers were hit, so I will NEVER have ANY sympathy for them ever.

    • DaveH

      Throughout history Governments have engineered conflicts to keep the citizens distracted and to build their Power. Why is this concept so difficult for you?

      • katrael59ganaiden

        DaveH, I don’t believe it was those guys with the box cutters that did it all on their own either and there are several sites that claim Israel was behind it. If Israel did it then they did it in conjunction with the US government. One thing’s for sure, those responsible had the help of one government or of a group of governments. Which one(s)?
        Another things seems evident to me here: we wouldn’t have all of these new agencies and laws that are in the process of enslaving us if not for this event. What a distraction and a nation full of Sheeple bought into it. Somebody pulled a “coup” on the people.

      • Ted Crawford

        Exactly what government was it that engineered the conflicts between the cavemen?

      • DaveH

        FAN — the Federal Association of Neanderthals.

    • sj

      Do you honestly think a hand ful of extremeist muslims armed with box cutters brought down two of the worlds strongests steel structures in a single hour?

      • sj

        I don’t claim to know if they are Bolshivics or Zionists or Rockafellers or Lizards from the forth diminsion all I know is they are misalined with American intrests and values, they control the considerable power this nation weilds, they are ruthless and dishonest therefore will not and cannot be voted out of the offices they merely control.

    • sj

      Forgot Luciferians or all of the above !

      • katrael59ganaiden

        And you’re right sj the guys in the real power positions aren’t out in the open where everybody can see them. That’s counter productive to their purposes. Smoke and mirrors and slight of hand.

  • Louis Lemieux

    Religion is the bulk of humanity’s subconscious and science is humanity’s consciousness. Our individual subconscious is an important part of each one of us as it underlies our consciousness. The more we become conscious and understand why we are not free, the more we can become free. Most people still function with the primitive parts of their brain, so they act like animals because all they know are the basic survival skills and greed. When humans use their minds to their full potential, we realize that there are better, more peaceful ways of solving our disputes. Being a liberal, conservative, Muslim, Jew or Christian has nothing to do with being a good or bad person. We all have our reasons for thinking what were thinking and for being what we are. Why then support violence through words or actions? All of us humans on earth form one great family and that in spite of all our religious, political and ideological differences. No doubt we have to protect ourselves from those who’s purpose in life is to harm others, but happiness is toleration and peace and peace is love and kindness to all.

    • Vicki

      Until we understand and honor first principle we will need governments to protect our Creator given rights.

      First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
      How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
      is how you shall be judged.

  • David Platter

    I am wondering how long it will be before Americans again declare independence from the ternary in Washington.

    • sj

      The day is coming and it will start with the military. When enough of them get tired of dying for the elite’s causes.

  • Henry Ledbetter

    A constitutional republic was what we were if we could keep it but it is almost totally lost and already may be beyond revival, but we must try. It was also one nation Under God with liberty and justice for all but far to many no longer acknowledge the true God of the Bible. Many pick and choose what they want to believe.and heap to themselves the teachers that have itching ears and turn from truth.

    • Ted Crawford

      We were warned, from the very beginning, about the dangers of the Progressive ideaology! ” Yes, we did produce a near perfact Republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, loss the memory of freedom?
      Material abundance without character is the path of distruction” Thomas Jefferson

      • katrael59ganaiden

        Ted, it seems that most of us agree with you that the failing of government lies with men. Good point. I also agree that the people today have it too easy and don’t understand what it is that they are giving up.

      • Vicki

        Ben Franklin probably said it best when asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention
        “A Republic. M’am. If you can keep it”

  • noel

    we are not a democracy…when we have a winner takes all vote for the presidency one might could make such a case. perhaps we have a democracy on the local level, but that would be it. since the civil war, states’ rights were trampled by that $3 bill, big gov’t, joto lincoln, and his tax war (see the morrill tariffs), no way one could call us a democracy. the founding fathers knew better as well. read the federalists papers if you have any doubt on that subject. and to the republic for which it stands… also, what have gotten for us mr. franklin? a republic , if you can keep it…
    so again, why do our leaders keep talking about democracies? IGNORANCE!!!

    • katrael59ganaiden

      noel, and the founders knew that a democracy had it’s place but like you point out only in the limited local arena.

      • Vicki

        Not even at the local level That is why the Bill of Rights and why the Constitution specifically forbids states from doing some things.

    • katrael59ganaiden

      It is ignorance but not on the part of politicians parts; it’s far worse than that. These politicians aren’t stupid but they are calculating. They rely on an uneducated electorate that has never read the federalist papers and who have no idea just how flimsy their rights are under a democratic tyrannical government.

  • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

    What most people in the so called freer world fail to realise is that we are really living under elected dictatorships in USA and Australia where i live.

    We are so quick to jump up and down and tell Putin what they are doing wrong in Russia without realising that our own political system is very similar, if the complaints of how Obama was elected and is running the place is any guide.

    The word ‘Democracy’ is a loose term our politicians like to use when they are dictating what their citizens should be doing and making sure we do what they want by using the military in overseas regions and the militarised police at home. The media is complaining that many of the Russian citizens are complaining of electerol fraud on why Putin got 64% of the vote but I think he got in fair and square and even if in reality he got only 40% in real votes, that would still be a majority and he is the only guy who can control and keep the Russians in control truth be known.

    Do we really want 50 million Russians excaping and invading the USA and Australia to live whenever they get the money and freedom to travel? Their voters got who they really wanted, so lets not us complain that their votes were not freely given when we are always complaining of most of politicians telling porkies and doing something different to their promises during election campaigns.

    Anyone disagree with me…please comment.

    • DaveH

      Your lack of commitment to Freedom is revealed in your statement — “Do we really want 50 million Russians excaping and invading the USA and Australia to live whenever they get the money and freedom to travel?”.

      • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

        The reality is many people are too afraid to be free and what type of freedom do you enjoy in the USA today which is worth offering to the Russians?

        The freedom to chat on this forum is all well and good because we dont need to worry about ending up in jail or Siberia, but how does that alone put food on a table I might ask you DaveH ?

        I only have to worry about people like you who dont believe I should have an opinion unless it accords with yours.

      • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

        And further more I doubt if many informed Russians would want to choose the USA as their last port of call to settle in considering how poorly you treat your own very poor and down and out, whereas in Australia I was thinking from a purely economic point of view that our very own Government bless their little souls are very generous to illegal immigrants by feeding and educating their children, giving then income support and even cheap housing. We cannot afford to house, feed, educate 50,000,000 new immigrants. eh 50,000,000 /3 = 16,666,666 families x $30,000 per family guestimate = $500 Trillion of recycled government borrowings or taxes creating $500 Trillion in consumer purchaes might seem a good idea to you DaveH, but it does not make sense to me.

        Your where thinking about more potential customers who have to work and not be invalid to make a living otherwise, how could new immigrants pay their way DaveH. In Australia we get lumbered with unemployable Africans who are not used to living in a civilised nation. Many still think they are at war and go about as they do in Detroit all the time collecting welfare from our generous federal government. One Sudanese/Zulu guy they let in had a great time raping several white women when he came to Australia thinking they were there for the taking.

        How many illegal Afghani immigrants are risking the high seas to travel to the USA which is closer ? I doubt there would be many and if any they would have been misinformed about their standard of living prospects in your FREE America.

        Your own Donald Trump would love to make money selling apartments to them with all the government support they would receive in Australia or the acute housing shortage it would create in the USA, but he claims to be like Dr Ron Paul and wanted lower taxes…who was Trump trying to impress claiming he was smarter than Obama if he were President, saving he would cut taxes and government programs?

        Grow up and educate yourself on money matters DaveH.

        I still support Dr Ron Paul as the only honest politician I have seen in the world today.

      • Vicki

        GILLYSROOMS from Australia says:

        The freedom to chat on this forum is all well and good because we dont need to worry about ending up in jail or Siberia…

        You may THINK you are safe there in Australia but last I checked the NDAA 2012 authorized the President to take anyone and make them “disappear”. It also declares the world to be the battlefield so unless you were planning on taking Australia off world, they mean YOU too.

        I only have to worry about people like you who dont believe I should have an opinion unless it accords with yours.

        So you are saying you don’t worry about people who have the power and inclination to KILL you. Yet you worry about people who have no interest in bothering you but MIGHT wish you would keep your opinions to yourself.

        I think your priorities are a bit messed up.

      • DaveH

        Grow up and educate myself, Gilly? Typical ad hominem attack from a Liberal.
        Gilly said — “I only have to worry about people like you who dont believe I should have an opinion unless it accords with yours”.
        Exactly what did I say that leads you to believe I’m censoring you?
        Statements like that, Gilly, don’t do much for your credibility.

      • DaveH

        I can see why you’re so reactionary, Gilly, because deep down you know your principles are inconsistent and indefensible.
        First Gilly says “I doubt if many informed Russians would want to choose the USA as their last port of call to settle in considering how poorly you treat your own very poor and down and out”.
        Then Gilly says ” We cannot afford to house, feed, educate 50,000,000 new immigrants”.
        It’s obvious that you don’t really care about your fellow human, Gilly, unless you get to do it with somebody else’s money.
        I would call you a hypocrite, Gilly.

  • katrael59ganaiden

    Last night my house was searched by a combination of officials which included at least one sheriff’s deputy, an out of his jurisdiction police officer, the nearby city fire department and the EMS service. These people conducted a search of our property and I believe that what they did was illegal. I would appreciate it If somebody would care to read a page and a half of text that describes what they did and tell me whether I’m just full of it or not. I believe this type of thing is a result of a tyrannical government motivated by mob rule.…ome-last-night/

  • katrael59ganaiden

    I’m sorry about that link. I’m not very good at some of this technical stuff. I’ll try it again.…ome-last-night/

    • Vicki

      Try this link.

      I did read it and you should probably contact a lawyer. I see no probable cause for them to enter your building. Any competent firefighter would have determined that the smoke was from a wood burning stove.

      • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

        Vicky, you seem to be suffering from a similar type of paranoia experienced by weed smokers.

        The reality anyone one could kill anyone very easily and there are many more perils on this earth than me worrying about your government or the Chinese or Russians. I dont worry about people like you and DaveH who would prefer I keep my opinions to myself because I do believe in freedom and i enjoy and participate in my freedom of contributing to this forum, until and as long as Bob Livingston permits me to continue, but if not I will move onto any other forum which will permit me the freedom of speech and to express my opinions.

        I suggest you join the thought police in your CIA or other censorship organisation of which you may have many which will accept you with open arms if you were really wanting to try being Bob Livingstons censorship moderator. I dont get bullied easily and what you are attempting to do goes against Liberterian views and modes of conduct against your fellow man. Again I suggest go back to Liberterian ellementery school.

      • DaveH

        Your comment makes no sense, Gilly. Neither Vicki nor I were trying to censor you. Anybody who reads the comments can see that.
        Sounds to me like you’re the one who is intoxicated.

      • katrael59ganaiden

        Thanks Vicki, I’ve considered that but, first I’ll go visit the fire chief, chief of police and the county sheriff first to find out just what their policies are concerning such matters. Then maybe I’ll go to a lawyer.
        As to GILLYSROOMS from Australia, Flashy, mark and others, we need their voices to be heard because it makes the rest of us think. Thinking people who do research can’t be led astray by soft words and promises of plenty that’s provided by the real producers. I think many out there are afraid that the real people who make the real wealth of this world will one day get tired of providing for those who think they are entitled to be taken care of the rest of their life and won’t be fed anymore.

  • Tazio2013

    Democracy at its best is but a byproduct of liberty. Because we are all supposed to be free to govern ourselves, whenever some issue of public policy faces the citizenry, all are entitled to take part. Democratic government rests, in a free society, on the right of every individual to take whatever actions are needed to influence public policy. Because freedom or liberty is primary, the scope of public policy and, thus, democracy in a just society is strictly limited. The reason is that free men and women may not be intruded on even if a majority of their fellows would decide to do so. If someone is a free, which means a self-governing, person, then even the majority of one’s fellows lack the authority to take over one’s governance without one’s consent. It cannot be otherwise unless there is prior agreement by all to accept such a process. The consent of the governed amounts to this and that is what the US Declaration of Independence means when it mentions that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

    In a just society no one loses his or her authority for self-government without giving it up as a matter of choice. No one gets to perform an operation on you, no matter how wise and competent, without your giving your consent, and the same is true, in a just system, about imposing duties and obligations on people. They must agree to this. If they do not, they aren’t to be ordered about at all. That would be involuntary servitude!

    • katrael59ganaiden

      Tazio2013, the problem with democracies is that the people have a direct vote on government policy. Our government, even now is NOT set up that way. We have elected officials legislate for us on our behalf and that are supposed to be restricted by the rule of law and this is not a democracy and was never meant to be.
      Democracies historically don’t last long because the various factions eventually break down into a mutinous rabble or eventually give way to despotic tyranny. It’s for this reason that the founders of our country eventually replace the articles of confederation which was subject to the whims of differing factions who could come into and go out of power. What your next comment really speaks to is not that of a strong republic ruled by a stable constitution but the an erosion of the rule of law by elected legislators who have become “factions” in their own right who are elected by an ignorant electorate. These people can’t come to power, as you rightly say, unless put there by people who are ignorant of the laws of their own land.
      We don’t need an “new justice” as there was nothing wrong with the old one. People are fallible and therefore subject to things like avarice and the excessive pursuit of sensual pleasures and there will never be a truly “utopian” world as long as the world is controlled by men.
      But, you are right, the masses need to wake up and re-establish the rule of moral and sane law.

      • Tazio2013

        Not certain whether or not this subject is of interest to you so…

        There Is A Tipping Point For The Spread Of Ideas And It Has Finally Arrived

        “When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

        An important aspect of the finding is that the percent of committed opinion holders required to shift majority opinion does not change significantly regardless of the type of network in which the opinion holders are working. In other words, the percentage of committed opinion holders required to influence a society remains at approximately 10 percent, regardless of how or where that opinion starts and spreads in the society.

        To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks. One of the networks had each person connect to every other person in the network. The second model included certain individuals who were connected to a large number of people, making them opinion hubs or leaders. The final model gave every person in the model roughly the same number of connections. The initial state of each of the models was a sea of traditional-view holders. Each of these individuals held a view, but were also, importantly, open minded to other views.

        Once the networks were built, the scientists then “sprinkled” in some true believers throughout each of the networks. These people were completely set in their views and unflappable in modifying those beliefs. As those true believers began to converse with those who held the traditional belief system, the tides gradually and then very abruptly began to shift.

        This can be seen filtering throughout the entire internet on all levels and subject areas from government, to politics, health, freedom, corruption, religion, the entire universe, and almost every controversial area of debate. People are finally absorbing the message that many so-called “conspiracy experts” have been broadcasting for years. They’re no longer conspiracies if everyone now believes them as fact. Everything has been a lie for such a long period of time that many of us wondered if the tipping point would arrive, but it has. The SCNARC researchers brilliantly set up dynamic models in their study to show why the unpopular opinion takes so long to materialize.

        • katrael59ganaiden

          Tazio2013, I find this information to be fascinating. I have to read it a couple of times because I’m thick headed but let me see if I get the gist of it: We’re about to see a revolution because the mountain of lies we inherited has been plowed away by the vast numbers of people who have helped to expose them? Something like that? Hopefully this is true.

      • Vicki

        Both direct and indirect democracy have the same fatal flaws.
        Watch the entire clip. It is only 10 min long.

  • katrael59ganaiden

    Ok that didn’t work so let’s try this and if this doesn’t work I’ll drop it.

  • Tazio2013

    So the real terrorists walk amongst us. They hold high office in our lauded institutions and come together to hold a missile to the head of any nation which does not conform to the agenda required of it. They will apparently go to any lengths to maintain the power structures to which they are accustomed, and by which they acquire the oil and mineral wealth deemed necessary to maintain and expand these structures.

    Britain and the USA stand shoulder to shoulder in their role as purveyors of this terror regime, scheming up the most effective way of upholding this 21st-century version of colonial conquest. They have, between them, engineered the domination of vast tracts of this planet under the guise of what is euphemistically named ‘the special relationship’. A special relationship forged out of the collaborative art of conquest, suppression and theft and sold to the world as the means of ‘ maintaining global stability.’

    Only when a critical mass wake up to this reality and see it for what it is, without taking the evasive action of denial, will we finally be in a position to turn the tide and set in motion a whole new agenda for the future of mankind*. There is no time to waste. We are either going to be complicit in the launching of a 3rd world war of disastrous proportions, or we are going to become the masters of our destinies and genuine peace makers — throwing off the chains of serfdom in the process. In the capacity of being masters of our destinies we will become purveyors of a new kind of justice for those whom we once enslaved and whose wealth helped bestow the title ‘Great Britain’ upon this island once known simply as Britain.

  • AJ

    Ah! Democracy the best government money can buy! Heaven forbid anyother form of government that may have principles and scruples that wouldn’t allow for greed and corruption to permiate it’s core. Like I said “Democracy” the best government money can buy!

  • Carlos Mosley

    I agree with Flash, the issue is more about women’s health than it was political, the republicans made it political to go against Obama every chance they get. The republicans keep their people misinformed to stir up the hate. The taxpayers are not paying for her contraceptives, she is paying for it through her insurance company. For the party that don’t want abortions, this is the alternative, yet they are against that. They want to make sure the woman has a baby even if its rape or incest, then they don’t want to help feed the kids, educate the kids, to help them have a better future. Ms. Fluke is a private citizen, she is not running around saying crazy and off the wall comments like, Palin, Bachman, Malkin, and Ingram. The things they say brings the outrage, not just because the are conservative. Yes they want to bomb Iran and keep fighting wars, because they don’t have to go, they want to send our young over there, Obama apologized for the Koran, to try to save lives, yet these clowns who don’t have to fight, or send their kids to fight talk real tough. Wake up America don’t let them take us back 50 years with their hateful rhetoric.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Why does your posting sound as if it was written for a class paper? Most likely it is.
      You are responding to the wrong article.
      And learn to think for yourself, not as your Leftist professors.

      • Vicki

        He also missed the key point that she is asking the government to FORCE a private company to provide her with contraceptives and making all the rest of the customers of that company pay for it.

    • DaveH

      The PTBs are making fools out of people like you. They could care less about your welfare, they just want your vote. It’s not a Party thing, it’s a Big Government thing.
      Even if you don’t have the morality to NOT ride on other peoples’ unwilling shoulders, you should at least get educated enough to realize the Government grows inversely to a country’s economy. So all of us, except the Leaders and their Pals, lose with Big Government.
      Here’s proof. The countries on the list are arranged by the size of their Governments. The bigger their Governments, the lower they are on the list. Check out the Median Household Incomes or the average incomes for the countries lowest on the list and see what Big Government does for a country’s economy:

  • Lawrence

    Our democratic republic worked fine as long as our nation honored God and was a righteous nation. Righteousness exalteth a nation. We have as a nation discarded God. Now we will be ruled by tyrants whether republicans or democrats.

    • katrael59ganaiden

      I agree that the government, which was formed around a strong belief in the ultimate moral authority of our creator but didn’t want to force a certain way to worship Him onto the people through law, has finally abandoned that ultimate moral authority for the licentious leanings of men. It’s goodbye nation as we once knew it if we don’t return to those morals. It may take a generation or more to happen but it will… it already has.

  • Kris

    I think socialism is the correct word for our government. Not democracy. Obama is a socialistic President, and we’ll continue being this way, if he’s re-elected.

  • Neil Swan

    Socialism is were government runs business. Democracy is were people vote for their leaders. We are the worlds greatest democracy. Thank god our constitution is against religious law and we are not run by a religion or a dictator.


    • WIA Ben

      Neil, in all do respect , go back to school and learn history of governments.

  • awakenedavenger

    You can’t export something abroad that you don’t practice at home. Plain and simple.

  • TIME

    People, first you must understand that we are nothing more as well nothing less than a “PEOPLE FARM.” As is any nation that has a “Central Banking System.”

    As it is now we are really no better than a cow or a chicken or any type of farm animal. You just make the goods that the 13 Bloodlines need, to include the very methods of removing you from the social structure when your bad.

    When you follow an IDOL such as an Obama or a Bush etc.., or vote for the lesser of two EVILS– you have failed.
    So Liberty or Democracy, your still not FREE, your only a sub level Doestic farm unit.

    Peace and Love

    • katrael59ganaiden

      Yep, cannon fodder. This is not to diminish the role of those who put their life on the line for their family and nation but their devotion is selfless, however, when that nation no longer serves the interests of the common people then the people become cannon fodder.

  • Buck

    Basically , democracy is two wolves and a aseep sitting down to discuss what to have for dinner . A constitutional republic is when the sheep is heavily armed . Thus , the first and second amendments provide a venue ruled by law instead of the force of the majority . over the minority . Furthermore , this prevents the major problem with socialism from occurring if the government is kept in check .

  • Jake Goode

    Dear columnist, the point you make here is inconsistent. you say we shouldn’t shove democracy down other countries’ throats because it destabilizes, but at the same time you imply that democracy is an ideal to pursue in the USA. if the USA does not promote democracy abroad, why should it do so here? after all, it destabilizes either way.
    you’re really making two arguments here – one is that the US shouldn’t help establish democracy abroad, and another that we don’t have democracy here. As for the second argument, maybe you’re right, but for the first one, I think you may be wrong. The US historicaly has supported authoritatian governments abroad that were un-democratic. Here I’m thinking of Iraq, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador. This was because it gave the region stability at the expense of the people of those countries. I’m not so sure that you can say this was good. If we say that other countries shouldn’t have democracies, then why should we? China is a much safer country than the USA, so shouldn’t we cut some of our rights for security? Or are we a more mature society, ready for the responsibility, whereas Russia, China, Iraq, aren’t? What exactly is your point?
    democracy abroad = mass destruction; democracy in USA = nonexistant
    I don’t see the connection between these two arguments; unless what you’re saying is, that our government doesn’t really promote democracy anywhere, just pursues its aims…which i’ll agree with…

  • Avery McClellan

    You are all full of sh–. What we need and what we will soon have is a CIVIL WAR. It will not be pretty. There will be blood running ankle deep in the streets. But that is EXACTLY what it will take to find out this one thing:


    I love my liberty more than life itself. For if I am not free…truly free…then what the hell good is a life of servitude to rotten central dictatorial federal government…that enslaves me to INSANE REGULATIONS and absurd taxation?

    I am not decidedly anarchist. We must have government. But the government we have today is totally off the chain out of control They have NO REGARD for the very document they swore to uphold and defend and they have no regard for the peoples they represent.

  • AWKingsley

    During Bushes terms of office, I remember him saying the U.S. was going to bring Democracy to other countries, and then being surprised that Bush believed it was appropriate to bring Democracy by invasion. Our own country is so economically and morally degraded that pretending we are good examples for the world was embarrassing, even back then. The moral degradation is so bad now here at home that our own fiscally and morally incompetent President Obama is trying to bring homosexuality to the world instead of God’s Laws. We have no business bullying and invading other countries, not in the name of Democracy and not in the name of nukes. Certainly, we have no business in supporting homosexuality in our foreign policy. It is amazing that Clinton mentioned God more than any other president, while at the same time having so little regard for God’s Laws. It looks to me like our country is plagued by a bunch of Pseudo-Christian impostors who do not give a whit about righteousness. As has been said before, Democracy fails when the masses figure out that they can get government largesse. And, with government largesse comes government payment for vice and the consequences of vice, along with government payment for continuing corruption. All of this is in addition to the fact that government largesse (wealth re-distribution) is accomplished by Federal Government theft in the first place. The correction is Libertarianism, the philosophy of Our Founding Fathers. Ron Paul for 2012!

  • http://aol M. Y. Saaed

    I like to know, to do not believe in democracy is democracy? Or no democracy is a democracy. As we learned, no philosophy is aphilosophy.

  • GILLYSROOMS from Australia

    I’m starting to think that American English and Australian English languages have evolved in different directions over the last 200 years so that DaveH and Vicki’s comments seem to be interpreting my comments to mean something other than they should…….is’nt there a story in the bible somewhere about a people squabbling because they were speaking in different languages and they could not understand each others intended comments? Bible readers, come to my rescue please, how did that story go?

    Could explain why we have so many wars and conflict between peoples of different nations.

  • ranger hall

    Does anyone know what the 1st written Bible was, and when it was written.
    MARK 100%. They call it Manifest Destiny. Wonder when The People will stop this Rule the World Mentality.
    Texas was a brainwashing Job,Austin,Houston,Travis,Crocket,Bowie, DOES any one know what these People was Promised, LAND,MONEY, POWER. to Bring followers to texas to fight. This was the US Govts way of taking control of Texas, And New Mexico,Arizona, and Calif. Manifest Destiny.
    The Arab Countries have to be Under our Control, Protect ISREAL,and the OIL.Isreal is # 1, has been under our Protection, Since WE gave them a Country. ISREAL has been a Problem for Hundreds of years,and still is. ww1 and ww2. Who controls the Money.
    The UN is Controlled by the US, Mostly supported by the US, The US and its Troops is always the front runners in these useless wars, OH other Countries do partisipate,But they are under our control and partisipate in smaller ways, keeps it credible.
    WE have Invaded Countries ILLEGALLY for years. Granada,Panama, Afganistan,Iraq. And the UN has not said one thing about it or the World Court.
    THE biggest Problem with other Countries in the World, IS they do not Trust the USA, WE have always been the aggressor., and from the look of things WE still are. Russia has feared us since ww2, China since Korea.Etc.Also no.Korea.
    Russia maintained its Power to keep up with us, Then we sort of Out spent $$$ Russia.
    Its still the same old crap,same slim balls for leaders
    The CREATOR what does this Mean.

  • Rockyvnvmv

    When I try to email this story, it wants me to type in a securitu code, to authenticate my humanness, But, when I click in the space, to type it, my keys, on my phone, go away… Wonder why …?

    • awkingsley

      The U.S. is in trouble. The dollar is about to lose its world’s reserve currency status, so we are attacking Middle Eastern oil producing countries, bullying them to try to get them to stop trading oil in other currencies. Not only have we become a slimy piratical unethical nation that attacks other nations for money, we are losing the battle we are waging. The BRIC natiions are still moving away from the dollar, buying oil in gold or their own currencies. We are just on the verge of losing our world’s reserve currency status, and we are going to be in this situation as a Developing Country whose industry has moved off shore. We are in big trouble. The only cure for the problem is not one the American people understood: Ron Paul is the only candidate who comprehends the dire nature of the problem, and we should have elected him instead of Obama. Now, we get to face the music by summer’s end according to many financial advisers.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.