"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Friday, June 18, 2010

Where Is Our Next Great Thinker/Leader/Satesman; We Have Been Sorely Missing One

“A Republic—If You Can Keep It”
June 18, 2010 by Chip Wood, Personal Liberty Digest

At first I couldn’t believe my eyes. In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic… if you can keep it.”

No, he didn’t!

I had to face the fact: A Straight Talk reader had fallen victim to 100 years of liberal brainwashing. What he said was such a gross perversion of the truth—and the difference is so incredibly important to preserving what liberties we have left—I hope you’ll indulge me in a brief history lesson this week.

If you remember much from your high school history classes about the founding of this country, you know there was a great deal of controversy about what type of government the newly independent states should create.

The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.

As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Over the past four decades I have recounted this story several hundred times. For many years I traveled the country giving speeches about the threats to this Republic. I always enjoyed the opportunity to talk to high school students when I could wrangle an invitation. When I did, I loved to tell them about the differences between a republic and a democracy.

“A lynch mob is democracy in action,” I would say. “While if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws, not just the whims of a mob.”

Another line I used a lot was, “Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in—a republic or a democracy?”

I told them about the importance of “binding men down with the chains of a Constitution.” That this was the only sure way to protect their freedom. And that anyone who wanted to change this republic into a democracy was an enemy of liberty.

A century or two earlier there would have been no need to give such a talk—and no interest if one did. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.

Please don’t dismiss this as a mere quarrel over semantics. Understanding the difference between the two systems of government is absolutely vital. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that our very liberties depend on getting more Americans to realize the importance of this seemingly arcane dispute.

Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy

Most high school students who heard me say such a thing were surprised and shocked. They had been taught that the United States was, and had always been, a democracy. That “majority rule” was the fairest of all possible forms of government.

Who was this guy to tell them they’d been lied to?

So I quoted what some of our founding fathers had to say. I asked if they had heard of The Federalist Papers—the collection of articles written during the debate over ratifying the new constitution.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:

“…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 are violent in their deaths.”

Alexander Hamilton concurred. In a speech he gave in June 1788, urging ratification of the Constitution, he thundered:

“The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Fisher Ames, a member of Congress during the eight years that George Washington was president, wrote an essay called “the Mire of Democracy.” In it, he said that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism.”

Yes, our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former; but as I said above, they hated and feared the latter.

In view of the founders’ ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

These principles used to be widely understood and commonly accepted. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 until 1835, said that, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”

Nor was it only Americans who feared and despised democracy. Lord Acton, the famous Englishman who coined the aphorism that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” had this to say:

“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

It was only during the last century that the falsehood about this country being a democracy became widely accepted. Woodrow Wilson declared that we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy.” Franklin Roosevelt said that the U.S. “must be the great arsenal of democracy.”

So today, almost every schoolchild in America believes that the U.S. is a democracy. Why did the liberal intelligentsia in this country, supported by their slavish followers in the media and their docile puppets in politics, pull this “bait and switch” on us?

For the answer, let’s turn to another Englishman, Alexander Fraser Tytler, also known as Lord Woodhouselee, who wrote:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

The only part of Mr. Tytler’s warning I’ll dispute is his use of the word “always.” You and I have been given the power to prevent our country’s descent into a democracy. It’s called the ballot box. Let’s hope enough of us use it this coming Nov. 2 to begin the process of taking our country back.

Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood

To Have Lived During The Time Of These Great Men & Minds; Who Among Us Today Could Have Held Our Own Against Any Of Them In A Debate? And To Think We've Neglected The Warning They So Generously Provided...

Continued Shredding Of The Constitution

The Federal Government will assume no power not expressly given it by the states. The Federal Government also has done nothing, and continues to do nothing, about border security and immigration enforcement in America. So why then would a sitting President authorize a lawsuit against a state for doing something the Federal Government should be doing, but refuses to do?



Has anyone seen Dorothy?

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Nope, No Problem(s) On The Border...

The U.S. Gov: giving parts of Arizona back to MexicoBy Michael Webster: Syndicated Investigative reporter June 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM PDT

Thousands of acres of the Sonoran Desert closed to Americans

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed large portion of Southern Arizona in and around the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and all along the southern side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend. This is 80 miles north of the Mexican border and its now off limits to American citizens!!

A reliable informant known to us as “Duck Hunter” has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that the Mexican Drug cartels now control large areas of Southern Arizona. According to the Pinal County Sheriff large areas in Southern Arizona are very dangerous and is off limits to U.S. citizens. " We do not have control of this area"

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/06/pinal-county-sheriff-mexican-drug.html

No one is working this area, Not ICE, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection, FBI, Pinal County, BLM ........... That tells me that the cronies in Washington does not give a sh... about the publics safety.This is going on 80 miles north of the border. Their actions are telling me that is fine that the Mexican Drug Cartels has full control of our desert.

Where is Congress and DHS in this new Mexican-American war that we seem to be losing?

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife this area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent.

Assaults on law enforcement officers, U.S. Citizens and violence against migrants have escalated in recent times. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented.

Many of these activities are concentrated at the border and inland for 80 miles.The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice according to Mitch Ellis Buenos Aires NWR Refuge Manager.

Concerned Citizens group say “there are now signs posted here in AZ just off I-8. No more camping south of I-8. So, our government has surrendered and ceded part of Arizona to the smugglers and cartels of Mexico?

What do you think would happen if signs like this were to be found back East? But this is just backwater, flyover AZ so it doesn’t count to the media and Congress , I guess. Folks, this nation better wake up and pay attention. This is only the beginning of what you can expect in YOUR backyards. This is not an exaggeration: I stopped hiking some of my favorite mountains and canyons because of the smuggling dangers. Who wants to carry more guns and ammo than water in order to survive in the Arizona desert? That is what it has become. Maybe your state is next?

Duck Hunter said “How much land are we going to allow the Drug and Smuggling trade to take from the States.”  Here is another area that is "Officially" CLOSED This area is completely closed and has been for almost 4 yrs due to the violence of border issues.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/

According to Duck Hunter ARMED TROOPS TO THE ARIZONA BORDER NOW! OR WE CAN DO THE ARMED MINUTEMAN THING. Either way this must be and it will be dealt with by American Concerned Citizens!

Michael Webster’s Syndicated Investigative Reports have been read worldwide, in 100 or more U.S. outlets and in at least 136 countries and territories. He publishes articles in association with global news agencies and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 136 countries. Many of Mr. Webster’s articles are printed in six working languages: English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. With ten more languages planed in the near future.


Mr. Webster is America's leading authority on Venture Capital/Equity Funding. He served as a trustee on some of the nation’s largest trade Union funds. A noted Author, Lecturer, Educator, Emergency Manager, Counter-Terrorist, War on Drugs and War on Terrorist Specialist, Business Consultant, Newspaper Publisher. Radio News caster. Labor Law generalist, Teamster Union Business Agent, General Organizer, Union Rank and File Member Grievances Representative, NLRB Union Representative, Union Contract Negotiator, Workers Compensation Appeals Board Hearing Representative. Mr. Webster represented management on that side of the table as the former Director of Federated of Nevada. Mr. Webster publishes on-line newspapers at www.lagunajournal.com and www.usborderfirereport.com and does investigative reports for print, electronic and on-line News Agencies. All of Mr. Webster's articles, books/CD's can be read or downloaded free at: http://www.lagunajournal.com/michael_webster.htm or MICHAEL WEBSTER'S OTHER WRITINGS Contact e-mail: wibcom@aol.com

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Still Think Your Liberty (And The Constitution) Aren't In Jeopardy?

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 15, 4:08 pm ET


PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.

"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"

It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.

The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.

Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.

Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.

Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.

"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."

On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.

"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."

FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.

Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.

Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.

Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."

Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.

"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."

But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."

That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.

Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.

All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.

Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.

"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."

I Guess If You Can't Win An Election Cleanly, It's OK To Steal One - And With The Help Of The Justice Department No Less...

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

From The Center For Individual Freedom

After spending millions of dollars to get Barack Obama and their liberal allies in Congress elected, Big Labor Unions are now poised to become the beneficiaries of a 165 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout.


You read that right.

Ignoring the widespread public anger over bailouts for the financial sector... bailouts for the auto industry... and their failed “stimulus” scheme, Congress is now considering a bailout for Big Labor.

Specifically, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) recently introduced legislation euphemistically called the "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act" (S. 3157), which puts U.S. taxpayers on the hook for guaranteeing poorly and improperly managed Labor Union pension plans.

And if Senetor Casey gets his way, we taxpayers will be stuck with a 165 billion dollar tab, or more. In fact, according to some reports, 165 billion dollars is just the initial cost. Eventual taxpayer liability is potentially unlimited as pension benefits must be paid for life.

As the editors of the Wall Street Journal recently put it: “They [Union chiefs] are now counting on Mr. Casey to preserve their power by making taxpayers pick up the tab for years of pension mismanagement. With the union priority of ‘card check’ stalled, word is that the Casey bailout is Big Labor's consolation prize. Taxpayers should let Congress know they don't want to pay.”

And that’s exactly what we must do. This legislation must never see the light of day. It's time for patriotic Americans to rise up and say to Congress, in no uncertain terms, enough is enough. No bailouts for Big Labor... No more bailouts, period.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Obama Caught Up In A "Dragnet"

Enjoy!