After hearing the remarks and reading several articles, I find it's difficult to blame the mothers, as many would do. They obviously are handicapped in what they can do with these children. In most cases the mother is the stronger of the two--for now. Obviously, he/she will some day be much stronger than mother.
The "flare ups" from these children is not normally caused by something the mother has done. It's an automatic reaction to something internal.
Everybody wants to find something to blame when there is no stimulant, no action, no "video game", nor gory scene that sets them off. They are capable of creating their own "gory" scenes straight from their own minds.
I believe it's an internal trigger--one we can't see--and it's mostly unavoidable.
I suppose you can sit on the kid to hold him down--until he gets big enough to sit on you!
What's truly needed are mental hospitals and insurance programs to pay for the care and treatment they need. Some of these violent kids will never return to a normal life. Which is, I believe, why so many end up in our jails--many for life--for the crimes they commit.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs, when our society can't help these people.
I think we need to commission studies to determine the cause of these outbursts and look for cures in one more frontier in which little is known--the frontier of the mind.
And idiots like Obama, who use a crises like this to further their political aims, should be one of the first people sent to one of these hospitals (when available) for study and possible treatment.
Being the grandparent of a "special" child, for which there will be no adulthood, I feel for all these mothers who must undergo the terrible feelings of watching there child slowly become more and more estranged from their surroundings.
I pray daily that with more understanding in this world and more application of energy in studies of these diseases, we will eventually conquer our twisted "little child" and allow them to become normal adults.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
BUY AMERICAN--
Sure! Buy American! Save the UAW union members jobs!
Just saw an article showing the CEO of GM, speaking to a group of executives, about the future of GM. He says the future is secure "for years to come".
Well, they should be! The American taxpayer saved his butt!
As it turns out, 11 manufacturing plants for autos and 8 plants building drive trains for GM products are already established in China. GM has recently moved their Research and Development division to China from Detroit, leaving behind hundreds of blacks who relocated from the south to work in GM plants in Michigan. Now their work is gone and Detroit is a ruined city.
So again the taxpayer takes it on the chin, with government bailing GM and Chrysler out with a ton of our money. Oh, wait! The GM executives just gave themselves huge year end raises before they left for China.
I guess China is an "equal pay" country, so they took their raises before they moved there.
Good luck, GM. I will never buy another GM product, nor will I buy Chinese products. From now on I'll buy AMERICAN cars, built in AMERICA---even though they have Japanese names on them.
Turns out the Japanese cars are better made than GM products, anyway.
Ever see the repair sheet on a Cadillac?
Heh, heh, heh!
Just saw an article showing the CEO of GM, speaking to a group of executives, about the future of GM. He says the future is secure "for years to come".
Well, they should be! The American taxpayer saved his butt!
As it turns out, 11 manufacturing plants for autos and 8 plants building drive trains for GM products are already established in China. GM has recently moved their Research and Development division to China from Detroit, leaving behind hundreds of blacks who relocated from the south to work in GM plants in Michigan. Now their work is gone and Detroit is a ruined city.
So again the taxpayer takes it on the chin, with government bailing GM and Chrysler out with a ton of our money. Oh, wait! The GM executives just gave themselves huge year end raises before they left for China.
I guess China is an "equal pay" country, so they took their raises before they moved there.
Good luck, GM. I will never buy another GM product, nor will I buy Chinese products. From now on I'll buy AMERICAN cars, built in AMERICA---even though they have Japanese names on them.
Turns out the Japanese cars are better made than GM products, anyway.
Ever see the repair sheet on a Cadillac?
Heh, heh, heh!
Obama is Quick to Take Advantage of a Crisis
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the political leeches who continually use tragedies
to further their agendas.
The liberal left's determination to overturn our rights has been rampant for the past 4 years, and Obama was quickly upon the scene, taking advantage of the many dead children's bodies to serve notice we're in for 4 more years of the same.
The pundits, with their long faces, cancel the world while they put the news of the slaughter on our screens for days at a time. They're filled with wondering questions about how this could have happened. Some agree with the president that it's the fault of the evil citizens who own weapons. After all, where did this nutcase get his weapons? The last I heard, he got them from his mother---just before he shot her.
I guess we'd better blame mom. She really deserves it, doesn't she?
The attitude of the country, after the four years of Obama's destructive behavior, is one of depression. I've never met so many people who feel the country is not only down, but out, with no hope of recovery, especially now that Obama has been reelected.
These people are selling their properties and leaving the democrat controlled states, for states friendlier to repubs. California has lost several million over the past 8 years, because they became tired of the taxes and the regulations imposed by the democrats. It has particularly rankled them, because none of the democrats seem to want to take into account anything republicans have to say.
The attitude was best expressed by Obama: "I won!"
Unfortunately, mentally unbalanced people can only take just so much aggravation and it's my belief that what we're seeing in Connecticut is the result of the fiscal and moral problems brought upon us by the communists and socialists that have invaded our very homes, with their Godless schemes.
The first instances of retribution have arrived in Connecticut. As our morals decline further, retribution will follow apace.
I only regret, and sorrow, for the children, who must bear the brunt of the evil that has invaded our country, while those directly responsible for this awful crime spout their hypocrisy from our television screens in an attempt, once again, to blame inanimate objects for the evil in the country.
O rotten politicians, while you play your vocal games with the citizenry, please believe I will do all in my power to expose you for the devil's aides that you are.
The liberal left's determination to overturn our rights has been rampant for the past 4 years, and Obama was quickly upon the scene, taking advantage of the many dead children's bodies to serve notice we're in for 4 more years of the same.
The pundits, with their long faces, cancel the world while they put the news of the slaughter on our screens for days at a time. They're filled with wondering questions about how this could have happened. Some agree with the president that it's the fault of the evil citizens who own weapons. After all, where did this nutcase get his weapons? The last I heard, he got them from his mother---just before he shot her.
I guess we'd better blame mom. She really deserves it, doesn't she?
The attitude of the country, after the four years of Obama's destructive behavior, is one of depression. I've never met so many people who feel the country is not only down, but out, with no hope of recovery, especially now that Obama has been reelected.
These people are selling their properties and leaving the democrat controlled states, for states friendlier to repubs. California has lost several million over the past 8 years, because they became tired of the taxes and the regulations imposed by the democrats. It has particularly rankled them, because none of the democrats seem to want to take into account anything republicans have to say.
The attitude was best expressed by Obama: "I won!"
Unfortunately, mentally unbalanced people can only take just so much aggravation and it's my belief that what we're seeing in Connecticut is the result of the fiscal and moral problems brought upon us by the communists and socialists that have invaded our very homes, with their Godless schemes.
The first instances of retribution have arrived in Connecticut. As our morals decline further, retribution will follow apace.
I only regret, and sorrow, for the children, who must bear the brunt of the evil that has invaded our country, while those directly responsible for this awful crime spout their hypocrisy from our television screens in an attempt, once again, to blame inanimate objects for the evil in the country.
O rotten politicians, while you play your vocal games with the citizenry, please believe I will do all in my power to expose you for the devil's aides that you are.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Democracy--the Worst Form of Government
Borrowed from a Rockwell post:
Modern Ignorance, Modern Arrogance
Modern day "champions of democracy" consider democracy, or liberal democracy, (or is it Liberal Democracy?) their secular religion, and "free and fair elections" their holiest of sacraments. Let's hear what some of them have to say about their religious faith.
According to the right wing, global interventionist Freedom House, which purports to employ "rigorous analytic standards" in its annual reports on the state of freedom in the world:
"Democracies... are political systems whose leaders are elected in competitive multi-party and multi-candidate processes in which opposition parties have a legitimate chance of attaining power or participating in power. Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded... by... Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right... Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It... promote[s] human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs."
According to the federal Leviathan's compulsory, involuntary, decidedly unfree, taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, whose motto is "Supporting freedom around the world":
"The Endowment is guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values... the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wang Dan, of Tienanmen notoriety:
"We make no attempt to conceal the aim of the current student movement, which is to exert pressure on the government to promote the progress of democracy. People's yearning for democracy, science, human rights, freedom, reason, and equality, which lack a fundamental basis in China, have once again been aroused."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wei Jingsheng, author of "The Fifth Modernization":
"People need prosperity... to pursue their first goal of happiness, namely freedom. Democracy means the maximum attainable freedom so far known by human beings. It is quite obvious that democracy has become the goal in contemporary human struggles."
What can one say in response to these "champions of democracy," except that they are wrong, wrong, wrong? Freedom House is wrong. The National Endowment for Democracy is wrong. Wang Dan is wrong. Wei Jingsheng is wrong.
Freedom House for example, purports to employ "rigorous analytical standards" in its self-congratulatory annual ritual of passing judgment on the nations of the world.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Bush II's post-911 "Secure Homeland" as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 1 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while awarding mainland China, which takes from "Unfree" Chinese less than a third of what the US federal government takes from "Free" Americans in taxes, a rating of 7 for Political Rights and 6 for Civil Liberties.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Taiwan, with its unelected US puppet squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace since May 20, 2004, as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 2 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while classifying transparent, uncorrupt Singapore as "Partly Free" and awarding it a rating of 5 for Political Rights and 4 for Civil Liberties.
The "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed were apparently double standards.
It's bad enough that flagrantly biased judgment calls such as these cast doubt on Freedom House's integrity. What's worse is they cast doubt on Freedom House's grasp of political science, of cause and effect, of the catastrophic consequences of imposing defective political systems such as democracy upon hapless human populations.
Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, Wang Dan, and Wei Jingsheng are united in their ignorant conflation of liberal democracy with political liberty, and their arrogant demand that China adopt their failed and discredited system of government.
Free market economist Thomas Sowell had some choice words for this kind of facile thinking: "To include freedom in the... definition of democracy is to define a process not by its actual characteristics... but by its hoped for results."
Ancient Wisdom, Ancient Humility
Modern champions of democracy, who fancy themselves courageous defenders of the American political ideal, have either totally forgotten or never learned what America's Founding Fathers knew two centuries ago – – democracy is the worst form of government ever tried.
Don't believe me? Consider the following quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
America's Founding Fathers were visionary political philosophers confronted with the most daunting task imaginable. Their task was not merely to found a new nation, but to invent a new system of government. They diligently researched history to learn what to do. History rewarded them. It taught them not only what to do, but even more importantly, what not to do. The most important thing they learned not to do, was to adopt democracy, the worst form of government ever tried.
Given the Founding Fathers' fully warranted fear and loathing of democracy, we should not be surprised that the Constitution of the United States does not contain a single solitary reference to the word "democracy," but instead stipulates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."
The distinction between a democracy and a republic is hardly trivial. That the distinction between a democracy and a republic could inspire the Founding Fathers to such passions speaks volumes. The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty.
Not so Ancient Wisdom, Not so Ancient Humility
The following are excerpts from a 156 page citizenship manual issued by the US War Department, November 30,1928, explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The Franklin Delano Roosevelt White House later ordered all copies of this manual withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and all US Army posts and destroyed without explanation:
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication The Constitution of the United States, by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP 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.
CITIZENSHIP 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. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the direct rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
That was 1928. By 1952 however, the new Army Field Manual read:
"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run – and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.
Heaven Protect China from Democracy
That modern day "champions of democracy" are so woefully ignorant about something that America's Founding Fathers knew backwards and forwards, makes one want to weep with despair. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Mankind was supposed to become more sophisticated with the passage of time, not more simple-minded. Mankind was supposed to profit from precious wisdom acquired at immense cost in human lives, not blank it from memory within a few short generations.
That modern Chinese intellectuals would wind up reflexively parroting pro-democracy slogans is deeply discouraging, but is at least understandable. Democracy after all, is a western innovation. Chinese intellectuals eager to be perceived as progressive and forward thinking can be forgiven for conflating western progress in general with western democracy in particular.
But what excuse do American intellectuals have? The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not foreign history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not Chinese history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is the vital core of America's proud history.
Demands from Chinese citizens on the mainland for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are entirely legitimate. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Idealistic PRC leaders at the central government level are pressing for such reforms themselves.
Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are also entirely legitimate. Ironically, the current ROC government on Taiwan is far less committed to the Rule of Law than the current PRC government on the Chinese mainland. Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adopt democracy before they are willing to see the two sides reunited however, are myopic folly, especially coming from Pan Blue political leaders.
Demands from foreign governments for the PRC government to adopt democracy are the most despicable of all. Demands from foreign governments that China be saddled with the worst form of government ever tried, can rightly be construed as overtly hostile gestures and looked upon askance.
Heaven protect China from Democracy!
The Best Form of Government Ever Tried
Democracy, as we have seen, is the worst form of government ever tried. But what is the best form of government ever tried?
The best form of government ever tried, sadly, has largely been lost to mankind's collective memory. The best form of government ever tried flourished on Iceland between 930 and 1262.
It is time the modern world reclaimed the best form of government ever tried and gave it another chance. But that is the subject for another essay altogether.
America and China, Republics not Democracies
de•moc•ra•cy
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies
1: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives 2: A political or social unit that has such a government 3: The common people, considered as the primary source of political power 4: Majority rule 5: The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community
The Progressive Era ... began in ... the 1890s and lasted through the 1920s ... Many reforms dotted this era, including Prohibition with the 18th Amendment ... the Income Tax with the 16th Amendment and direct election of Senators with the 17th Amendment. Muckrakers ... reaction-producing writers ... were among ... the best examples of progressive reformers ... Initiative, Referendum and Recall, all parts of the ... fully democratic state, were ... pioneered during the movement.
Yes, Sun made frequent and abundant use of the term "min zhu," i.e., "people rule," i.e., "democracy." But Sun was using "democracy" in the greatly expanded, grossly inaccurate 20th Century sense of the word, as if it were a synonym for republic and an antonym for autocracy. When Sun used the word democracy, he meant republic. No one who knows anything about Sun's "San Min Zhu Yi" (Three People's Principles) can have the slightest doubt about this.
Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in republican government, not democracy. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in indirect as opposed to direct government. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in structural constraints as obstacles to "democracy," aka "mobocracy."
All this should be abundantly clear from the structural constraints Sun incorporated into the Chinese constitution, which closely mirror the structural constraints the Founding Fathers incorporated into the American constitution. The National Assembly is a good example. The National Assembly was Sun Yat-sen's answer to the Electoral College. The National Assembly, like the Electoral College, is a proudly, unabashedly "undemocratic" feature of the Chinese constitution. The Control Yuan is another. The Control Yuan represents Sun's attempt not only to emulate the American constitution's checks and balances, but to enhance them.
What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?
A republic is a nation ruled by law. The highest law in a republic is its constitution. In a republic everyone obeys the constitution.
A democracy, on the other hand, is a nation ruled by men. The highest law in a democracy is the "Will of the People." In a democracy, everyone obeys a man who represents the Will of the People. A man who represents the Will of the People is better known as a dictator.
It is no accident that Pan Green Taiwan independence fascists spearheaded the elimination of both the National Assembly and the Control Yuan. The aptly named Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) understands only too well that democratic political institutions such as Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, are highly compatible with fascism, whereas republican political institutions such as Constitutionalism, Original Intent, and the Rule of Law are insurmountable obstacles to fascism that must first be eliminated before the Pan Green camp can implement their fascist agenda.
It is no accident that Pan Blue "Da Zhong Guo" (Greater China) reunificationists spearheaded the successful boycott of Chen Shui-bian's illegal and unconstitutional "Defensive Referendum." Pan Blue reunificationists, after all, are true blue champions of the Republic of China Constitution and the Rule of Law.
George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language," observed that "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."
Truer words were never written. What language could be more slovenly than modern political language? What thought could be more foolish than modern political thought?
Terms such as "liberal" and "democracy" once had exact meanings.
The term "liberal" originally meant "an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism." A liberal was a disciple of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Today "liberal" means "an advocate of redistributionist welfare statism." Today a liberal is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. Today, the term "liberal" means the diametric opposite of what it meant during the Enlightenment. Today bona fide liberals have no choice but to refer to themselves as "classical liberals" or "libertarians."
The term "democracy" originally meant "people rule," or more idiomatically, "rule by the people." A democracy was a form of government that stressed universal suffrage, multiparty elections, and majority rule. Nothing more. The term did not contain any unwarranted positive connotations. It did not imply superiority over other forms of government. It did not imply, à la Neoconservative polemicist Francis Fukuyama, that mankind had arrived at "The End of History" and that democracy was the final stage of political evolution.
Today democracy is defined as the only legitimate form of government. Rejecting democracy is not an option. "Non-democratic" is equated with "undemocratic." "Undemocratic" is equated with "autocratic."
Today "democracy" is no longer a scientific definition. It is a religious catechism, to be invoked in the same breath as motherhood and apple pie. It is a catch-all phrase for "good government," for "enlightened government," for "progressive government," for "social equality and respect for the individual within a community."
Today, two centuries after the American Revolution, one century after the fascistic, populist Progressive Era, the critical distinction between a republic and a democracy has been thoroughly obliterated. Today "democracy" is considered a synonym for "republic" and an antonym for "autocracy."
This sort of equivocation, enormously useful for enforcing pro-democracy Political Correctness, has made our political language as worthless as fiat currency following runaway inflation.
Alexander Hamilton warned that the essential nature of democracy is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson warned that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. James Madison warned that democracies are spectacles of turbulence and contention, incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.
In today's America, the solemn warnings of these far-sighted champions of republican government and opponents of democracy are treated as "er bian feng" (wind whistling past the ears), and the proud republic established by America's Founding Fathers has been perverted into the very system they feared and loathed the most – – democracy.
The Republic of China under the Two Chiangs was a republic – – a flawed, imperfect republic, but a republic nonetheless.
The Republic of China under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shiu-bian is a "democracy." Not a democracy in today's ambiguous, equivocal sense of the word, but a democracy in the Founding Fathers' semantically precise sense of the word, i.e., an elective dictatorship.
What Taiwan needs today is not a Pan Green "deepening of democracy," but a Pan Blue rebirth of republican government.
Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried
"The best argument against
democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of
government except for all those others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill
Executive Summary: As the preceding quotes suggest, Winston Churchill
was deeply ambivalent about democracy. On the one hand, he was not about to
regurgitate the civics class twaddle we all ingested about Democracy with a
capital D. On the other hand, he could see no better alternative. Alas,
Churchill's political education was incomplete. The great statesman, for all
his far-ranging political knowledge, was wrong. Democracy is not "the
worst form of government except for all those others that have been
tried." Democracy is the worst form of government ever tried, period.
Democracy ranks among the gravest threats to individual rights and individual
liberty in human history. Democracy is, in certain respects, even worse than
absolute monarchy. Ignorant and arrogant modern day "champions of
democracy" need to get a clue. Assuming they are sincere when they sound
off about valuing the sovereign individual above the omnipotent state, then the
people they most need to educate about democracy are not the leaders of the PRC
in Beijing, but themselves. Modern Ignorance, Modern Arrogance
Modern day "champions of democracy" consider democracy, or liberal democracy, (or is it Liberal Democracy?) their secular religion, and "free and fair elections" their holiest of sacraments. Let's hear what some of them have to say about their religious faith.
According to the right wing, global interventionist Freedom House, which purports to employ "rigorous analytic standards" in its annual reports on the state of freedom in the world:
"Democracies... are political systems whose leaders are elected in competitive multi-party and multi-candidate processes in which opposition parties have a legitimate chance of attaining power or participating in power. Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded... by... Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right... Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It... promote[s] human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs."
According to the federal Leviathan's compulsory, involuntary, decidedly unfree, taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, whose motto is "Supporting freedom around the world":
"The Endowment is guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values... the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wang Dan, of Tienanmen notoriety:
"We make no attempt to conceal the aim of the current student movement, which is to exert pressure on the government to promote the progress of democracy. People's yearning for democracy, science, human rights, freedom, reason, and equality, which lack a fundamental basis in China, have once again been aroused."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wei Jingsheng, author of "The Fifth Modernization":
"People need prosperity... to pursue their first goal of happiness, namely freedom. Democracy means the maximum attainable freedom so far known by human beings. It is quite obvious that democracy has become the goal in contemporary human struggles."
What can one say in response to these "champions of democracy," except that they are wrong, wrong, wrong? Freedom House is wrong. The National Endowment for Democracy is wrong. Wang Dan is wrong. Wei Jingsheng is wrong.
Freedom House for example, purports to employ "rigorous analytical standards" in its self-congratulatory annual ritual of passing judgment on the nations of the world.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Bush II's post-911 "Secure Homeland" as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 1 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while awarding mainland China, which takes from "Unfree" Chinese less than a third of what the US federal government takes from "Free" Americans in taxes, a rating of 7 for Political Rights and 6 for Civil Liberties.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Taiwan, with its unelected US puppet squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace since May 20, 2004, as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 2 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while classifying transparent, uncorrupt Singapore as "Partly Free" and awarding it a rating of 5 for Political Rights and 4 for Civil Liberties.
The "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed were apparently double standards.
It's bad enough that flagrantly biased judgment calls such as these cast doubt on Freedom House's integrity. What's worse is they cast doubt on Freedom House's grasp of political science, of cause and effect, of the catastrophic consequences of imposing defective political systems such as democracy upon hapless human populations.
Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, Wang Dan, and Wei Jingsheng are united in their ignorant conflation of liberal democracy with political liberty, and their arrogant demand that China adopt their failed and discredited system of government.
Free market economist Thomas Sowell had some choice words for this kind of facile thinking: "To include freedom in the... definition of democracy is to define a process not by its actual characteristics... but by its hoped for results."
Ancient Wisdom, Ancient Humility
Modern champions of democracy, who fancy themselves courageous defenders of the American political ideal, have either totally forgotten or never learned what America's Founding Fathers knew two centuries ago – – democracy is the worst form of government ever tried.
Don't believe me? Consider the following quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the
American Revolution
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in
despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure
democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government.
Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient
democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good
feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure
deformity."
~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of
the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United
States
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of
the United States
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their death.
~ James Madison, 4th President of
the United States,
Father of the Constitution
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human
governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and
short-lived."
~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President
of the United States
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like
that between order and chaos."
~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, 1801-1835
Surprised? You shouldn't be, not if you know your political history. America's Founding Fathers were visionary political philosophers confronted with the most daunting task imaginable. Their task was not merely to found a new nation, but to invent a new system of government. They diligently researched history to learn what to do. History rewarded them. It taught them not only what to do, but even more importantly, what not to do. The most important thing they learned not to do, was to adopt democracy, the worst form of government ever tried.
Given the Founding Fathers' fully warranted fear and loathing of democracy, we should not be surprised that the Constitution of the United States does not contain a single solitary reference to the word "democracy," but instead stipulates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."
The distinction between a democracy and a republic is hardly trivial. That the distinction between a democracy and a republic could inspire the Founding Fathers to such passions speaks volumes. The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty.
Not so Ancient Wisdom, Not so Ancient Humility
The following are excerpts from a 156 page citizenship manual issued by the US War Department, November 30,1928, explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The Franklin Delano Roosevelt White House later ordered all copies of this manual withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and all US Army posts and destroyed without explanation:
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication The Constitution of the United States, by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP 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.
CITIZENSHIP 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. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the direct rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
That was 1928. By 1952 however, the new Army Field Manual read:
"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run – and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.
~ The Soldiers Guide, Department of
the Army Field Manual, issued June 1952
As we can see, after being subjected to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
fascistic New Deal, the once free American people forgot their constitutional
republican roots, and allowed themselves to be led down the populist democratic
path toward slavery. Heaven Protect China from Democracy
That modern day "champions of democracy" are so woefully ignorant about something that America's Founding Fathers knew backwards and forwards, makes one want to weep with despair. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Mankind was supposed to become more sophisticated with the passage of time, not more simple-minded. Mankind was supposed to profit from precious wisdom acquired at immense cost in human lives, not blank it from memory within a few short generations.
That modern Chinese intellectuals would wind up reflexively parroting pro-democracy slogans is deeply discouraging, but is at least understandable. Democracy after all, is a western innovation. Chinese intellectuals eager to be perceived as progressive and forward thinking can be forgiven for conflating western progress in general with western democracy in particular.
But what excuse do American intellectuals have? The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not foreign history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not Chinese history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is the vital core of America's proud history.
Demands from Chinese citizens on the mainland for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are entirely legitimate. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Idealistic PRC leaders at the central government level are pressing for such reforms themselves.
Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are also entirely legitimate. Ironically, the current ROC government on Taiwan is far less committed to the Rule of Law than the current PRC government on the Chinese mainland. Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adopt democracy before they are willing to see the two sides reunited however, are myopic folly, especially coming from Pan Blue political leaders.
Demands from foreign governments for the PRC government to adopt democracy are the most despicable of all. Demands from foreign governments that China be saddled with the worst form of government ever tried, can rightly be construed as overtly hostile gestures and looked upon askance.
Heaven protect China from Democracy!
The Best Form of Government Ever Tried
Democracy, as we have seen, is the worst form of government ever tried. But what is the best form of government ever tried?
The best form of government ever tried, sadly, has largely been lost to mankind's collective memory. The best form of government ever tried flourished on Iceland between 930 and 1262.
It is time the modern world reclaimed the best form of government ever tried and gave it another chance. But that is the subject for another essay altogether.
America and China, Republics not Democracies
de•moc•ra•cy
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies
1: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives 2: A political or social unit that has such a government 3: The common people, considered as the primary source of political power 4: Majority rule 5: The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community
~ The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or
by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme
power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn:
republic, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 3: the doctrine that the numerical
majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
[syn: majority rule]
~ WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton
University
Progressive Era The Progressive Era ... began in ... the 1890s and lasted through the 1920s ... Many reforms dotted this era, including Prohibition with the 18th Amendment ... the Income Tax with the 16th Amendment and direct election of Senators with the 17th Amendment. Muckrakers ... reaction-producing writers ... were among ... the best examples of progressive reformers ... Initiative, Referendum and Recall, all parts of the ... fully democratic state, were ... pioneered during the movement.
~ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China, like America,
was never intended to be a democracy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the Founding Father of
modern China,
like Benjamin Franklin, intended that the nation he bequeathed to posterity
would be "A republic, if you can keep it!" This much is beyond
dispute. The name of the nation Sun founded, after all, is "The Republic
of China." This would hardly be worth mentioning were it not for the fact
that so many people have forgotten it. Yes, Sun made frequent and abundant use of the term "min zhu," i.e., "people rule," i.e., "democracy." But Sun was using "democracy" in the greatly expanded, grossly inaccurate 20th Century sense of the word, as if it were a synonym for republic and an antonym for autocracy. When Sun used the word democracy, he meant republic. No one who knows anything about Sun's "San Min Zhu Yi" (Three People's Principles) can have the slightest doubt about this.
Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in republican government, not democracy. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in indirect as opposed to direct government. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in structural constraints as obstacles to "democracy," aka "mobocracy."
All this should be abundantly clear from the structural constraints Sun incorporated into the Chinese constitution, which closely mirror the structural constraints the Founding Fathers incorporated into the American constitution. The National Assembly is a good example. The National Assembly was Sun Yat-sen's answer to the Electoral College. The National Assembly, like the Electoral College, is a proudly, unabashedly "undemocratic" feature of the Chinese constitution. The Control Yuan is another. The Control Yuan represents Sun's attempt not only to emulate the American constitution's checks and balances, but to enhance them.
What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?
A republic is a nation ruled by law. The highest law in a republic is its constitution. In a republic everyone obeys the constitution.
A democracy, on the other hand, is a nation ruled by men. The highest law in a democracy is the "Will of the People." In a democracy, everyone obeys a man who represents the Will of the People. A man who represents the Will of the People is better known as a dictator.
It is no accident that Pan Green Taiwan independence fascists spearheaded the elimination of both the National Assembly and the Control Yuan. The aptly named Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) understands only too well that democratic political institutions such as Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, are highly compatible with fascism, whereas republican political institutions such as Constitutionalism, Original Intent, and the Rule of Law are insurmountable obstacles to fascism that must first be eliminated before the Pan Green camp can implement their fascist agenda.
It is no accident that Pan Blue "Da Zhong Guo" (Greater China) reunificationists spearheaded the successful boycott of Chen Shui-bian's illegal and unconstitutional "Defensive Referendum." Pan Blue reunificationists, after all, are true blue champions of the Republic of China Constitution and the Rule of Law.
George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language," observed that "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."
Truer words were never written. What language could be more slovenly than modern political language? What thought could be more foolish than modern political thought?
Terms such as "liberal" and "democracy" once had exact meanings.
The term "liberal" originally meant "an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism." A liberal was a disciple of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Today "liberal" means "an advocate of redistributionist welfare statism." Today a liberal is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. Today, the term "liberal" means the diametric opposite of what it meant during the Enlightenment. Today bona fide liberals have no choice but to refer to themselves as "classical liberals" or "libertarians."
The term "democracy" originally meant "people rule," or more idiomatically, "rule by the people." A democracy was a form of government that stressed universal suffrage, multiparty elections, and majority rule. Nothing more. The term did not contain any unwarranted positive connotations. It did not imply superiority over other forms of government. It did not imply, à la Neoconservative polemicist Francis Fukuyama, that mankind had arrived at "The End of History" and that democracy was the final stage of political evolution.
Today democracy is defined as the only legitimate form of government. Rejecting democracy is not an option. "Non-democratic" is equated with "undemocratic." "Undemocratic" is equated with "autocratic."
Today "democracy" is no longer a scientific definition. It is a religious catechism, to be invoked in the same breath as motherhood and apple pie. It is a catch-all phrase for "good government," for "enlightened government," for "progressive government," for "social equality and respect for the individual within a community."
Today, two centuries after the American Revolution, one century after the fascistic, populist Progressive Era, the critical distinction between a republic and a democracy has been thoroughly obliterated. Today "democracy" is considered a synonym for "republic" and an antonym for "autocracy."
This sort of equivocation, enormously useful for enforcing pro-democracy Political Correctness, has made our political language as worthless as fiat currency following runaway inflation.
Alexander Hamilton warned that the essential nature of democracy is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson warned that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. James Madison warned that democracies are spectacles of turbulence and contention, incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.
In today's America, the solemn warnings of these far-sighted champions of republican government and opponents of democracy are treated as "er bian feng" (wind whistling past the ears), and the proud republic established by America's Founding Fathers has been perverted into the very system they feared and loathed the most – – democracy.
The Republic of China under the Two Chiangs was a republic – – a flawed, imperfect republic, but a republic nonetheless.
The Republic of China under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shiu-bian is a "democracy." Not a democracy in today's ambiguous, equivocal sense of the word, but a democracy in the Founding Fathers' semantically precise sense of the word, i.e., an elective dictatorship.
What Taiwan needs today is not a Pan Green "deepening of democracy," but a Pan Blue rebirth of republican government.
August
31, 2005
Bevin Chu [send him mail] is an American architect
of Chinese descent registered to practice in Texas.
Currently living and working in Taiwan,
Chu is the son of a retired high-ranking
diplomat with the ROC (Taiwan)
government. His column, "The Strait Scoop" is published on his
website, The China Desk.
Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Wednesday's Rant
It's raining this morning, and it's gloomy as hell, which matches the outlook for the country over the next year.
The only people who see rainbows and happy days are, in order, gays and those idiots who voted for Obama.
I hate the be the bearer of bad news--but as long as it involves dumb democrats, I'll suffer with it.
Obama is going to let the country slide down the coal chute. He's letting us walk right off the cliff, while he smilingly watches us splat on the bottom!
Now, if I were a democrat, I'd have to ask myself, "why is he doing this? Why is he letting the country go to hell, when he should be trying to make things easier for our citizens?"
Whatta' ya' wanna' bet it's because he's not a democrat?
Ask yourself how this guy, who was raised a communist, could be a democrat. Of course, anybody who can read knows the answer. He admits it in his book.
He was also raised by a Muslim. We already know that and he admits that in his book, also.
So what do you suppose causes his contorted outlook on politics and life in general?
Well, we know he loves money, power and vacations--in that order. Oh yeah, and also golf! Whee!
He admitted, many moons ago, that if it comes to a crisis, he will side with the Muslims. What that means is, all you generals, and arm chair quarterbacks can stop wondering why Obama has ignored the troubles in Libya, Syria and, now, Egypt. It also explains why he's not clamped down on Iran, who seems to be mostly behind the troubles in the Middle East!
When it comes to the Muslim brotherhood, he stands solidly behind them. And when their new "constitution" is released, how many of the Egyptian people's rights will be guaranteed?
Can you say, "Back to the past for Egypt---again!"
Yep, right back to the old, persecute women for daring to show their faces in public--or anything else, for that matter.
So the answer to the question as to why Obama is letting us hit bottom is simple. He's Muslim. He doesn't give a rat's behind about our citizens. And he's learned how to "crash" a country from Marx and company. And that's been his aim all along.
Talk about secrets! This guy can't give you the time, without lying about it!
Worse yet the democrats will keep right on idolizing this guy, until he grabs their nuts and slaps them in the face with them. Even then, they'll just say it's birth control!
America is gone. The America I grew up with has been destroyed by politically correct, and corrupted politicians, union leaders and various and sundry dumb movie people who can't speak their own names unless a writer tells them how to do it.
The country is gone and it isn't going to be back, any time soon. I fully expect to see many people, such as myself, arrested because they spoke against Obama. It will start slowly, but by the end of 2014, I suspect it will be in full swing!
Obama didn't build those "FEMA camps" for nothing. Nope, THEY aren't going to waste!
The only people who see rainbows and happy days are, in order, gays and those idiots who voted for Obama.
I hate the be the bearer of bad news--but as long as it involves dumb democrats, I'll suffer with it.
Obama is going to let the country slide down the coal chute. He's letting us walk right off the cliff, while he smilingly watches us splat on the bottom!
Now, if I were a democrat, I'd have to ask myself, "why is he doing this? Why is he letting the country go to hell, when he should be trying to make things easier for our citizens?"
Whatta' ya' wanna' bet it's because he's not a democrat?
Ask yourself how this guy, who was raised a communist, could be a democrat. Of course, anybody who can read knows the answer. He admits it in his book.
He was also raised by a Muslim. We already know that and he admits that in his book, also.
So what do you suppose causes his contorted outlook on politics and life in general?
Well, we know he loves money, power and vacations--in that order. Oh yeah, and also golf! Whee!
He admitted, many moons ago, that if it comes to a crisis, he will side with the Muslims. What that means is, all you generals, and arm chair quarterbacks can stop wondering why Obama has ignored the troubles in Libya, Syria and, now, Egypt. It also explains why he's not clamped down on Iran, who seems to be mostly behind the troubles in the Middle East!
When it comes to the Muslim brotherhood, he stands solidly behind them. And when their new "constitution" is released, how many of the Egyptian people's rights will be guaranteed?
Can you say, "Back to the past for Egypt---again!"
Yep, right back to the old, persecute women for daring to show their faces in public--or anything else, for that matter.
So the answer to the question as to why Obama is letting us hit bottom is simple. He's Muslim. He doesn't give a rat's behind about our citizens. And he's learned how to "crash" a country from Marx and company. And that's been his aim all along.
Talk about secrets! This guy can't give you the time, without lying about it!
Worse yet the democrats will keep right on idolizing this guy, until he grabs their nuts and slaps them in the face with them. Even then, they'll just say it's birth control!
America is gone. The America I grew up with has been destroyed by politically correct, and corrupted politicians, union leaders and various and sundry dumb movie people who can't speak their own names unless a writer tells them how to do it.
The country is gone and it isn't going to be back, any time soon. I fully expect to see many people, such as myself, arrested because they spoke against Obama. It will start slowly, but by the end of 2014, I suspect it will be in full swing!
Obama didn't build those "FEMA camps" for nothing. Nope, THEY aren't going to waste!
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Secession? Constitutional, or not?
You've probably noticed several states submitting notices to the federal government notifying them of their declaration of Sovereignty. This is done, because they are a little leery of openly declaring they are seceding from the union. That, along with thousands of petitions--one, startlingly enough, from California--declaring citizens desire to separate from the Union at the earliest, are then done in by an included request for "permission"!
WHAT? You declare you're sovereign and wish to be left alone and then request agreement from the federal government??
I can't believe you said that!
Worse yet, you claim you have a right to do all of this, but give yourself away by asking for the fed's acquiescence!
Obama is sitting back and getting a gigantic belly laugh, every time he receives one of these.
In the first place--and contrary to popular opinion--there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to stop states from seceding. No matter what President Lincoln said, or did, he did not have to authority to stop states from taking the actions they did, back in 1861.
What he DID do, is to use federal troops to bully those states back into line. His authority was the big stick!
A much better explanation of a state's right to secede is presented here by a better authority:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/parting-company-12-11-28.html
So what would Obama do? The same damned thing--and he'd call himself Lincoln II, while doing it!
Whether he was right or wrong would then be decided by the military. Seceding states would be wise to seek agreements from the military, not for physical aid, but for neutrality. If the military decided to remain neutral, the State's National Guard would serve as the military arm of the NEW United States.
Once they have seceded, the seceding states would have to "borrow" the constitution, declaring it their own. They would have to notify the Obama government that they were now considered illegally in possession of government buildings and ask them to evacuate immediately. If any person in the Obama administration wanted to join the new government, they should be allowed to leave their offices peacefully. Any government officials who chose to stay, would be arrested and removed.
The only thing left to do to accomplish this, is to find several states with the nerves to band together and openly oppose the present government.
--or, putting it to music, let's "Begin the Beguine"!
WHAT? You declare you're sovereign and wish to be left alone and then request agreement from the federal government??
I can't believe you said that!
Worse yet, you claim you have a right to do all of this, but give yourself away by asking for the fed's acquiescence!
Obama is sitting back and getting a gigantic belly laugh, every time he receives one of these.
In the first place--and contrary to popular opinion--there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to stop states from seceding. No matter what President Lincoln said, or did, he did not have to authority to stop states from taking the actions they did, back in 1861.
What he DID do, is to use federal troops to bully those states back into line. His authority was the big stick!
A much better explanation of a state's right to secede is presented here by a better authority:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/parting-company-12-11-28.html
So what would Obama do? The same damned thing--and he'd call himself Lincoln II, while doing it!
Whether he was right or wrong would then be decided by the military. Seceding states would be wise to seek agreements from the military, not for physical aid, but for neutrality. If the military decided to remain neutral, the State's National Guard would serve as the military arm of the NEW United States.
Once they have seceded, the seceding states would have to "borrow" the constitution, declaring it their own. They would have to notify the Obama government that they were now considered illegally in possession of government buildings and ask them to evacuate immediately. If any person in the Obama administration wanted to join the new government, they should be allowed to leave their offices peacefully. Any government officials who chose to stay, would be arrested and removed.
The only thing left to do to accomplish this, is to find several states with the nerves to band together and openly oppose the present government.
--or, putting it to music, let's "Begin the Beguine"!
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Today is the First Day of the Rest of the Life of America!
Yep, I know that usually applies only to people, but in this case it applies to ALL of the people that make up America.
Getting out the vote has been an important job. Unfortunately, in California, there appears to be a few people who, once thought dead, have apparently resurrected themselves for one final vote! Why this is necessary in California, when this state is 70% democrat and 29.8% republican, is beyond me.
But who am I to disparage the state I live in?
Mmmm, I think I will anyway!
California will elect the amateur Obama, once again. Since Brown didn't run against him, they can't see any reason why they shouldn't elect him---again! If nothing else, the democrats being the creatures of habit that they are, simply take the party line and follow it directly to the voting booth! If a democrat ever had an original thought, it would sound something like, "I wonder if the government will buy me a new car when this one quits?" And, of course, the man would either be black, or brown!
Now, don't bother calling me a racist, because I admit I have become one. I went along, year after year, believing in equality and freedom for all. I believed all the high falutin' phrases that came down to us through our founding fathers until I discovered--as many others have--they didn't push to abolish slavery, either!
And the blacks actually liked their lives then. "Massa" took care of them, providing free medical care, a house, clothing and all the chitlins they could eat!
And right down to this day, many of them still long for the same things---as evidenced by the black woman in 2008 who said, loudly and clearly, "Obama gon' buy me a HOUSE!" And as if that wasn't enough, this year another Black woman discovered and said, to her great joy, "Obama gib us FREE phones!"
In fact, Obama "gib" many of them more than one, as it turns out! Please don't ask what they use them for---danged it I know! Maybe they'll call their ancestors in Africa to boast about the $1.2 billion Obama gave them as reparations! For what, I also don't know! None of them have ever been slaves and danged few can point to ancestors who were slaves.
So what has Obama done to alleviate this "racist" attitude on the part of the whites? Why, he's encouraged the blacks to become even MORE racist--until the social pages are now filled with comments from Blacks like, "I gon start a riot an' kiw me some WHITE M***er F**kers!"
Ah, yes! There's nothing like a good education, is there? Of course, they threatened this if Obama should LOSE! They'll probably riot even if he WINS---just for the "hellahbit"!
Soooo, WHY am I a racist? (I ask myself that question, because noone else will ask!)
It's hard to believe I'm a racist because I actually believe in equality for all! I believe the Black man has every right to advance himself, the same as the white man. He has a right to run for office, just as the white man does.
He's entitled to be represented on television in the various stories, sitcoms, etc. as white men.
BUT-=-
The way they are represented now, is UNequal and in their favor.
You see, the total population of the U.S. is well over 300 million souls. Of those, 12% are blacks;14% are hispanic and the rest are mostly white, with some asians thrown in.
So to be fair, blacks, wanting "equality", should be represented at a rate of no more than one in probably 3.4 of "all other" races, which would include Asian, Hispanic and White.
But, for some strange reason, they believe they deserve MORE, because, after all, they were so poorly treated for so many years!
Awwww!
Can you feel my sympathy?
One thing in all of this I am certain of---Obama has damaged the image of the Black man so badly, they will be very lucky to ever see another Black president---especially from the Communist/socialist/democrat party!
Getting out the vote has been an important job. Unfortunately, in California, there appears to be a few people who, once thought dead, have apparently resurrected themselves for one final vote! Why this is necessary in California, when this state is 70% democrat and 29.8% republican, is beyond me.
But who am I to disparage the state I live in?
Mmmm, I think I will anyway!
California will elect the amateur Obama, once again. Since Brown didn't run against him, they can't see any reason why they shouldn't elect him---again! If nothing else, the democrats being the creatures of habit that they are, simply take the party line and follow it directly to the voting booth! If a democrat ever had an original thought, it would sound something like, "I wonder if the government will buy me a new car when this one quits?" And, of course, the man would either be black, or brown!
Now, don't bother calling me a racist, because I admit I have become one. I went along, year after year, believing in equality and freedom for all. I believed all the high falutin' phrases that came down to us through our founding fathers until I discovered--as many others have--they didn't push to abolish slavery, either!
And the blacks actually liked their lives then. "Massa" took care of them, providing free medical care, a house, clothing and all the chitlins they could eat!
And right down to this day, many of them still long for the same things---as evidenced by the black woman in 2008 who said, loudly and clearly, "Obama gon' buy me a HOUSE!" And as if that wasn't enough, this year another Black woman discovered and said, to her great joy, "Obama gib us FREE phones!"
In fact, Obama "gib" many of them more than one, as it turns out! Please don't ask what they use them for---danged it I know! Maybe they'll call their ancestors in Africa to boast about the $1.2 billion Obama gave them as reparations! For what, I also don't know! None of them have ever been slaves and danged few can point to ancestors who were slaves.
So what has Obama done to alleviate this "racist" attitude on the part of the whites? Why, he's encouraged the blacks to become even MORE racist--until the social pages are now filled with comments from Blacks like, "I gon start a riot an' kiw me some WHITE M***er F**kers!"
Ah, yes! There's nothing like a good education, is there? Of course, they threatened this if Obama should LOSE! They'll probably riot even if he WINS---just for the "hellahbit"!
Soooo, WHY am I a racist? (I ask myself that question, because noone else will ask!)
It's hard to believe I'm a racist because I actually believe in equality for all! I believe the Black man has every right to advance himself, the same as the white man. He has a right to run for office, just as the white man does.
He's entitled to be represented on television in the various stories, sitcoms, etc. as white men.
BUT-=-
The way they are represented now, is UNequal and in their favor.
You see, the total population of the U.S. is well over 300 million souls. Of those, 12% are blacks;14% are hispanic and the rest are mostly white, with some asians thrown in.
So to be fair, blacks, wanting "equality", should be represented at a rate of no more than one in probably 3.4 of "all other" races, which would include Asian, Hispanic and White.
But, for some strange reason, they believe they deserve MORE, because, after all, they were so poorly treated for so many years!
Awwww!
Can you feel my sympathy?
One thing in all of this I am certain of---Obama has damaged the image of the Black man so badly, they will be very lucky to ever see another Black president---especially from the Communist/socialist/democrat party!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Obama, the Con Man, Has Failed to Fool Us--Again!
Yep! Obama keeps trying to fool us, but we've gotten to know him too well!
Lie after lie---Dodge after dodge--He keeps trying to convince us he didn't know anything about the attack on the consulate at Benghazi.
Now, of course, we've seen enough facts to know he not only lied in his first press appearance, but has lied ever since. He even allowed Hillary to take the responsibility, then grandly proclaimed, "Well, you know, the president is ultimately responsible!"
Well, if you know that's true, WHY DON'T YOU RESIGN, you lying little creep!
Oh yeah, I know! You're supposed to show respect to the President. But as far as I'm concerned, he's never shown respect for the American people. Instead, we've had to overcome the conspiracy of the media, along with the lies of the "president" and find the truth ourselves--no thanks to the democrat, or communist party!
As a result of all of this, Romney will walk off with this election by a landslide. Obama will be buried under millions of votes! What he should have as a reward is a jail term.
Never have we seen a president so secretive about his past; never have we seen a president who has lied so often and regularly to his constituents!
Obama will go down in history as the first "fake black man" who conned his way into the presidency and ultimately brought world shame upon this great country.
We've had presidents who disliked the military and hated our world image, but never one who disliked the military and our image so much he did everything within his power to dismantle it--and ultimately was personally responsible for the deaths of our representatives.
If he had a conscience, he'd resign, but we know he has no conscience, therefore we should "resign" him ourselves.
Congress, let the impeachment begin!
Lie after lie---Dodge after dodge--He keeps trying to convince us he didn't know anything about the attack on the consulate at Benghazi.
Now, of course, we've seen enough facts to know he not only lied in his first press appearance, but has lied ever since. He even allowed Hillary to take the responsibility, then grandly proclaimed, "Well, you know, the president is ultimately responsible!"
Well, if you know that's true, WHY DON'T YOU RESIGN, you lying little creep!
Oh yeah, I know! You're supposed to show respect to the President. But as far as I'm concerned, he's never shown respect for the American people. Instead, we've had to overcome the conspiracy of the media, along with the lies of the "president" and find the truth ourselves--no thanks to the democrat, or communist party!
As a result of all of this, Romney will walk off with this election by a landslide. Obama will be buried under millions of votes! What he should have as a reward is a jail term.
Never have we seen a president so secretive about his past; never have we seen a president who has lied so often and regularly to his constituents!
Obama will go down in history as the first "fake black man" who conned his way into the presidency and ultimately brought world shame upon this great country.
We've had presidents who disliked the military and hated our world image, but never one who disliked the military and our image so much he did everything within his power to dismantle it--and ultimately was personally responsible for the deaths of our representatives.
If he had a conscience, he'd resign, but we know he has no conscience, therefore we should "resign" him ourselves.
Congress, let the impeachment begin!
Thursday, October 04, 2012
What Hath Obama Wrought?
"Mighty Obama has struck out!"
I almost felt sorry for Big "O" last night. The looks on his face as Romney ripped him a new exit hole, was pretty pathetic. It was obvious from the look Obama didn't like being contradicted!
Well, what can you say? The poor guy, after 4 years (and 57 states) never did get his facts right. He tried 3 different times to convince America that Romney was planning to stick the middle class with 5 trillion more in debt--despite the fact Romney denied it to his face---a face that grew increasingly more PO'd every time Romney contradicted him!
It's beginning to look like even the mainstream media with all their lies of omission can't save Obama's hide this time. These debates have put Romney squarely in front of 50 million people and, I believe, most of them can tell a liar when they see one---and I guarantee it's not Uncle Mitt!
At one point Obama was so disoriented by his anger he wander clear off his point and had to be hauled back to reality by the moderator, who let him know he was running clear over time.
What will the 2nd debate show us? Probably more of the same. I don't look for Obama to change his demeanor. He's not capable of looking pleasant when someone calls him on one of his lies.
I'll give him a lot of credit, though, for one thing: He wasn't a bit abashed by emitting his lies on public television and doing so in his most convincing manner.
Yep! I'll bet he could con his 48% into buying a pot load of snake oil!
I almost felt sorry for Big "O" last night. The looks on his face as Romney ripped him a new exit hole, was pretty pathetic. It was obvious from the look Obama didn't like being contradicted!
Well, what can you say? The poor guy, after 4 years (and 57 states) never did get his facts right. He tried 3 different times to convince America that Romney was planning to stick the middle class with 5 trillion more in debt--despite the fact Romney denied it to his face---a face that grew increasingly more PO'd every time Romney contradicted him!
It's beginning to look like even the mainstream media with all their lies of omission can't save Obama's hide this time. These debates have put Romney squarely in front of 50 million people and, I believe, most of them can tell a liar when they see one---and I guarantee it's not Uncle Mitt!
At one point Obama was so disoriented by his anger he wander clear off his point and had to be hauled back to reality by the moderator, who let him know he was running clear over time.
What will the 2nd debate show us? Probably more of the same. I don't look for Obama to change his demeanor. He's not capable of looking pleasant when someone calls him on one of his lies.
I'll give him a lot of credit, though, for one thing: He wasn't a bit abashed by emitting his lies on public television and doing so in his most convincing manner.
Yep! I'll bet he could con his 48% into buying a pot load of snake oil!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)