Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2009

How Did We Get Here?

Have you ever wondered just how in hell did the Republic that was the United States of America descend from being a republic to being a democracy?
You ask, "What is that fool talking about? The United States is and always has been a democracy."

WRONG !!

The United States, at its founding, was a republic. I am sure you all have heard this story: Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

We managed to keep it for about 90 years, depending on how you count. Assaults on our republic began almost immediately after its creation. For the most part, most of them were defeated and our republic survived.

The assault began after the War Between the States (not civil war) with the addition of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments the enemies of our republic turned the tide and began undoing all the work our Founding Fathers and early patriots fought and worked so hard to win for, not themselves, US!!

And we began our trek down the road to democracy.

Until the "progressive" movement came on the scene in the closing years of the 19th Century, the way of life our founders envisioned for us was being built.
Teddy Roosevelt who became known as the "trust buster" was a leader of the progressive movement.

Then, along comes another progressive dream, the income tax.

For the first half of the 20th century the country was governed (ruled) by progressive-marxist-socialist. Just as we have now. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover are the exceptions.

And we traveled farther down the road to democracy.
What is our money really worth?
In the election of 1896, the Free Silver forces supported Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan; Republican candidate William McKinley ran on a platform that included backing paper money with gold. McKinley was supported by businessmen who believed the adoption of the gold standard would stave off inflation and help the country achieve economic prosperity—McKinley won the election. In 1900 he made good on his campaign promise, signing the Gold Standard Act into law.

Gold remained the standard of the U.S. monetary system until early in his presidency, on April 5, 1933, F.D.Roosevelt,democrat, signed Executive Order 6102, which ordered people to turn in their gold to the government at payment of $20.67 per ounce because the U.S. could no longer guarantee the value of the dollar in gold. The executive order enabled the Federal Reserve to expand the nation's money supply without regard to gold reserves.

We have left our republic in the dust and arrived at a democracy. Now to advance to socialism. Don't fear, it's just a short step.

We continued plodding down that road at a steady, but when compared to 2009, slow gait until August 15, 1971.
What happened on August 15, 1971 you ask. President Richard M. Nixon, republican, order his Secretary of the Treasury, John Connolly, democrat to remove all ties of the U.S. dollar to gold.
This was done allegedly to prevent "speculators" causing wild fluctuations in the value of the American Dollar. Which was probably true but misguided. By removing all value of the dollar to gold, Nixon and Connally provided cover for the damage Lyndon B. Johnson (democrat) did to the dollar by attempting to prosecute two wars (Vietnam and Poverty) simultaneously. He lost them both and with the assistance of Nixon, left us at the door of socialism.

Read what a Member of the House of Representatives has to say.

We are not quite there yet, but close.
By aiding and abetting each other a democratically elected democrat congress (elected in 2006) and a compassionate, conservative, democratically elected republican president led us to the brink of economic meltdown.
So, they decide to get together and help.


What does our democracy do next?
Why elect a full blown marxist-socialist-democrat, of course.

One last thing:

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

* A government of the masses.
* Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
* Results in mobocracy.
* Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
* Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
* Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

* Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
* Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
* A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
* Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
* Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
* Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

Thursday, May 7, 2009

A Moderation Rant

Ronald Reagan, "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

Barry Goldwater, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Now, from the dark side, Lyndon Johnson, "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue.""

Ever since the 1964 election, the "extremism" charge has been used extremely effectively by leftists and "moderates" against the right.
The term "extremism" has been primarily used to attack certain politicians -- Goldwater, Reagan, DeLay, Paul, Palin and even G.W. Bush -- and what they stand for. Such politicians are widely regarded -- validly or not -- as enemies of statism and defenders of capitalism.
America was founded by men who opposed the violation of individual rights -- men who opposed statism. If "moderation" in politics is the current ideal, then any uncompromising defender of the principles of man's inalienable rights -- the principles of freedom and capitalism -- could be labeled an "extremist."
Why is it used against proponents of smaller governments but not against proponents of bigger governments? Why Goldwater, Palin or Paul, but not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?
"Moderation" in politics implies inconsistent, middle-of-the-road and compromising, it promotes a lack of principles and integrity in politics.
You, who are "moderates" cherish the status quo. You are desperate to preserve the present political system -- a chaotic battleground of countless pressure groups fighting for more government favors and handouts at the expense of individual rights. The attacks on "extremism" serve to advance statism.
Conservatives should resolve to bury the "extremism" smear once and for all. They should do so by making a ringing declaration: a "moderate" defense of our form of government is an extreme vice -- a consistent and principled defense of our constitution and heritage is an extreme virtue.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Texas Democrats Endorse Voter Fraud

The Texas legislature is meeting in its biennial session and Texas Democrats are once again making asses of themselves. By threatening to seek sanctuary in New Mexico or Oklahoma or another state to shirk their duty to Texas as they did in 2003.
This time it is not about redistricting. This time it is about voter fraud. It is about enabling unqualified aliens to vote in Texas elections. The Democrats are thereby denying Texas citizens their expectation of and their right to, fair and honest elections.
Texas Democrats Endorse Voter Fraud
One of the primary opponents of the Voter ID bill, Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, is also sponsoring legislation to ad more taxes on the things you buy most. Despite the rhetoric the end result of such a bill would be an increase in prices at the grocery store and other retailers that you, the customer and voter buy the products you and your family need and use most.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Kennedy and Limbaugh

Three cheers for Rush. He has the guts, intestinal fortitude for those whose feminine sensibilities may be upset by the manly term.
That is only one of the manly attributes Edward M. "little teddy" Kennedy was lacking on the fateful night of July 18, 1969. Had little teddy's surname been anything but Kennedy, he would have been jailed for leaving the scene of an accident/homicide. The punishment would have been more than a "go and sin no more", not even slap on the wrist from the constabulary of Hyannis Port, MA. After all, this is the man who would be King.
I will not mourn the loss of the remnant of the rum running Kennedy family which continues to pollute this planet with the family bilge.
As far as I am concerned, the sooner Edward M. "little teddy" Kennedy draws his last breath, the sooner we can all draw a sigh of relief.
The "lie 'n'" of the senate is more a coward, adulterer, and a drunk than a person to be honored. He is certainly not a creature to be idolized or admired.
This is only speculation for I am mad, as any fool can see.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama's Hidden Agenda

Much has been said about Barack Hussein Obama's marxist-socialist beliefs.
Hear what "the One" has to say about the Second Amendment.

Obama and Your Rights

It is very telling.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Electoral College

Much has been said about the Electoral College (e c).
Most of the arguments against the e c have been in the context of the individual vote does not count and therefore is not "democratic".
The government of the United States was not designed to be a democracy, but rather a representative republic.

This is what I believe the founders intended:

"A republic is form of government whereby the majority elects representatives to enact laws on behalf of everyone."

This is what it has devolved to:
"A democracy is direct government rule by the majority and is concerned only with the wants or needs of the dominant group."
Notice the difference?
The most perfect example of a democracy in action is a lynch mob!

I am not arguing that changes should not be made to the e c concept. Far from it, I think changes should be made.

I think that the e c could and should better represent the popular vote of each state. How?
Simple. Allocate e c ballots by having each congressional district having one vote and one vote for each senator per state.
This would help some smaller communities not have their voice taken away by New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc.

I would like for you to follow the link by clicking on the heading of this post. Then post your thoughts.