The 'Baggers evil masters (hmmmm, I thought this was a grassroots, organic movement) have been caught in yet another dishonest attempt to protect the racists among them.
It's easy to offer a reward when you know the video is doctored.
You people have been offering this video as absolute proof that the incident (corroborated by reliable witnesses) never happened. When will you ever learn -FoxNews and talk radio are not sources of facts.
Who has offer that video as evidence that it didn't happen? That's the left twisting facts again to suit their needs: From the article you linked:
Your own liberal film guy didn't hear it and didn't film it but he "believes" it happened. Does he "believe" in Santa Claus too and does that make it so?
All the people there with recording devices not ONE has come forward with proof to claim Breitbart's 100,000 reward.
I'm not saying it wasn't said, in that crowd anything is possible, but you also can't say if it was said, that who said it was a member of the Tea Party. I know racism exists in America and around the world, and it probably always will, but you, and your lefty friends want to portray a whole group of people as racists simply because you disagree with their views and because they are viewed as a danger to Obama's and the Democrats liberal socialist agenda, and that is just WRONG! That's no different than saying all blacks are criminals because it is mostly blacks in prison.
You have always been a master at revisionist history, now you're applying it to right-wing posts. Make me the same offer that Breitbart made. Deposit 10,000 USD into an escrow account, payable to the ACLU. Bet me that I can't find wingnut posts claiming the video was proof that the incident didn't happen.
I won't make that bet because I'm sure you can find someone making such a claim, but that isn't revisionist history.
What I do find interesting in your response though is a disregard for the greater issue here, the use of racism as a means to demonize a group with legitimate concerns. You want to change the conversation, distract us from the issues, and disparage a group which even the Huffington post claims represents 1/4 of Americans. You want to promote the idea that if you can find one racist in that group, that they must all be racists and their concerns don't matter because they hate Obama because he's black (well he's 1/2 black).
This gaggle of idiots doesn't need my help. They do a very good job of demonizing themselves. They brandish weapons to try to intimidate peaceful people. They call anyone who doesn't agree with their demented societal views a Socialist. They basically want to overturn the will of the majority of Americans through threats and intimidation. You wonder why you people are marginalized and continue to lose where it counts - the ballot box? Step away from the fringe and rejoin society, you'll feel better about yourself when you're actually contributing instead of wallowing in self-pity.
Well you're making a lot of claims here and I suspect they are all without merit. Where was anyone intimidating peaceful people with weapons? That's bogus. Again, you're upset with the socialist label of your politics, well it's not meant to disparage and I don't see why you would be insulted by it. Be that as it may I don't see why such criticism should be cause for demonization. Contrary to what you believe, the will of the majority is not how America works, if it was we might still have slaves. Our government is setup to protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority. We have a constitution and our government is supposed to rule in accordance with that document. Now that hardly seems like a view of the "fringe".
As for the ballot box, we shall see my friend, we shall see.
You seem a bit angry, relax this will all be over in a few short months.
I am curious as to where the Republicans/Conservatives are losing at the ballot box though, it seems that honor would be going to Democrat/Liberal candidates.
What is this mysterious TK I keep hearing about??
The gross mistake being made is ever assuming the Tea Party folks are a 'fringe'. They are America.
Should we call Obama a racist because he associates with racists? Apparently not. Should we call Obama a socialist because he associates with socialists? Apparently not. Should we call Obama anti-American because he associates with 'God Damn America' types? Apparently not.
Should we criticize Tea Party protesters who objected to the passage of a health care bill obtained through graft and corruption, and wholly without transparency? Clearly many liberals do object to their right to object. Apparently, only liberals have the right to object to anything, everyone else is supposed to just shut up, bend over and grab their ankles, and let the board fall where it may.
I didn’t see your link, Ron, so to find out more I just Googled "Teabagging video"
What I found there greatly disturbed and aroused me
Cool! My mom gets paid per click. Did you buy any of the products advertised by Amazon.com?
The "fake" video supposedly shot "later in the day" - wasn't.
You can actually see the "victimized" congressmen walking through the crowd and you can hear people say "kill the bill", and that's all.
This is just another attempt to discredit American's right to protest against a tyrannical government.
But don't take my word for it. Check out the site crashtheteaparty.org
It will tell you exactly the strategy being used to undermine anyone who doesn't like what the slime on the hill are trying to force on us - and you can join up if you want
You really shouldn't confuse the situation with facts, it angers them.
Facts, lol. Coming from people who obviously haven't done their reading. Not sure which article Ron posted, but I know what most of them were saying. The video IS later in the day, you see Lewis leaving in it. The slurs he reported took place upon his arrival.
Thanks for paying attention and keeping your eyes on the facts. With folks like you two running around, I'm sure our nation will continue to thrive for many years to come.
Right. How dare the will of the majority be expressed through legislation? Those damned socialists!
You keep bringing up the "will of the majority", but clearly, the majority was against the health care bill and still are. Are you suggesting Obama is not carrying out the "will of the majority but should?
I'll ammend my earlier post. FoxNews, Talk Radio, AND TK, are bad places to go for "facts".
You are aware that Obama was elected by a majority? You are aware that despite their claims, the TeaBaggers are a minority?
These are facts. Learn the difference.
May I add ALL major media outlets are bad places to go for facts. The Internet's not much better (though there's more of it to choose from, I guess, at least).
The idea that the NEWS media has a liberal bias is weird to me, but the idea that news media IN GENERAL have bias is not _remotely_ weird... we should expect it. And not trust them an inch.
The Huffington Post specifically has a liberal bias, generally, sure. MSNBC (well, specific talking heads at least) obviously have a liberal bias, generally, but overall the problem is not a liberal bias (Fox News obviously covers the conservative bias end of things) but an IDIOCY bias.
You are aware that Obama has an approval rating of -10 aren't you? Obviously not. A RESPECTABLE poll, an ACCURATE poll, a REAL poll!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll
You're referring to the most popular politician in The United States? You people are really getting desperate.
Will of the majority? You do realize the majority was against this health care bill, don't you?
TK, you're confused as to how our system works. Take a few hours off, study some junior-high-level history, and then try to add something useful.
Which video are you talking about here Madame X? Because there are several. The article refers to a specific video that Breitbart posted on his site that was filmed after the events took place.
I posted a while back a video of some teabaggers shouting at a black congresswoman and I can hear the N word - but that's a different moment at the same protest.
I've also seen the video where the black congressman is spit on. I can see both sides of the story - maybe the guy was just spraying as he shouted, but it's pretty obvious that something hit the congressman's face.
There's plenty of other evidence of the teabaggers' racism, just google "racist tea party signs."
Well why don't you claim the 100,000 dollar reward?
And please stop with the BS racist label of the Tea Party, or do you also believe in condemning a group of people based on on few bad apples too, so then according to your belief, all Muslims are terrorists and all blacks are criminals.
Not quite - I don't believe that all Republicans are racist, or all Christians are racist.
But I think it's pretty obvious that a sizable portion of the tea partiers are racist, and the evidence is right there for anyone to see.
That's why no one is surprised that the Congressmen are claiming they were spit on and called N****.
A "sizable portion"?? Really? And it's pretty obvious??? Really?? Then why doesn't anyone have it on tape?
I think the only thing that is pretty obvious here is that the Democrats are frightened for their jobs in November and will do ANYTHING, including putting plants in the Tea Party crowd to demonize them and garner public sympathy heading into the elections.
Could you post links to the videos that show the Congressmen being spit on and them being called the N word?
These tea bags are unbelievable.
Why would anyone lie about that?
The fact that you don't believe it really shows your true colors.
Yellow and green.
Green of course you know---money-it's what drives you.
And yellow--for being afraid to face your own demons.
Buk buk bawk!
Chicken haws about more than one thing I see.....
BUK BUK BAAAWWWWK.
Michelle Bachmann...Give Back that $250,000 from the evil guvmint!
Or be a shallow hypocrit all your life.
Oh and Armey, sheik of the golden goose....give back youre pensions!! How many are there? 2? 3?
Or be a shallow hypocrit all your life.
oooops. Too late.
Funny though...I've never seen anyone else ever be spat on and called Honkey...or Cracker....or Spic...or Dago...or Wop....or Guinny...or any number of other derogatory names we can all think of.
Not only are baggers Democrat-specific bashers, but apparently they're race specific as well.
Weeellll, not really....they DO bash immigrants too. Geuss that would be in the Spic category eh Tancredo?
Tancredo...tancredo...hmmmmm, wop or guinny? Let's spit on him and find out!
You know what these responses about the Tea Party members being racist show, that the liberal media propaganda is effective! You are all being played, either that or you just aren't interested in the truth. Here is the demographics of the Tea Party movement:
http://winstongroup.net/2010/04/01/behi … -movement/
Independents and liberals combined make up the bulk of the movement. The majority are older males, you know the guys that protested the Vietnam war and marched in civil rights demonstrations! I'm just sick and tired of the lies freely bandied about by you fools! Stop reading the left wing blogs and start using your brains! A visit to the Huffington Post clearly shows their agenda in regards to the Tea Party, more than 1/2 the page are negative stories about the Tea Party. If that's all you read it's no wonder you think like you do!
Poppa, apparently you didn't read the article you linked--
In three national surveys, done for New Models from December 2009 through February 2010, 57% of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans, another 28% said they were Independents, and 13% were Democrats. Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal
Well perhaps it was in another survey where the numbers were different, but the point is, the Tea Party is a cross section of America and even if they are mostly conservative, they certainly aren't ALL racist hate mongers as the left would like to make them appear and which many of you here are advocating as well.
I would expect ANY group that is opposed to President Obama would contain some racists. I doubt groups supporting Obama would. But the media wants to paint any group that oppose Obama as racist and that logic is simply flawed and absurd and insulting on it's face. Why would any responsible media seek to demonize a group in such a way? Who benefits from that kind of irresponsible reporting? Use you heads people!
Agreed. The Tea Partiers are not all racists, homophobes, government haters, immigrant haters, but the movement has been a magnet for these types. And the leaders have done little to discourage or weed them out or even disavow them.
Ralph as I stated before, any movement opposed to the policies of President Obama will attract fringe elements, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so of course there presence is to be expected. I can tell you I get email from the Tea Party and they constantly caution against any hate symbolism, actions or speech. One of the spokes people is black for crying out loud!
You have to remember this is not a well organized movement, it is truly grass roots. You also have to be aware that the main stream media pretty much works for Obama and is doing everything in it's power to disparage this group. Why?
Regarding the views of teabaggers, here's a poll released last week by the University of Wasington comparing the VIEWS of pro-teabaggers to anti-teabaggers regarding race and social issues.
I will let you go out and see which group showed a bias against blacks, latinos and gays... I am not even going to give a hint.
(Were you surprised?)
Ron, No discussion of teabagger fraud is complete without mentioning the 'up to one million' who marched on DC in September. Reliable estimates put the crowd at tens of thousands.. but not to be denied, the teabaggers posted pictures as proof of their strength.
Of course as the picture of the Washington Mall was inspected, features showed that the photo had to be from some time well before 2009. A few buildings were missing. ooops.
But these folks who are so willing to commit fraud will call 4 respected members of Congress liars, even when evidence supports their claim, when witnesses support their claim, because we can't produce a picture of the tonsils of the spitter.
The hateful nature and character of the movement doesn't stand up to scrutiny any better than the fake picture of the Washington mall did.
Rest assured, they will continue to provide examples of their dishonesty as long as they exist. They provide good material for late night comics; otherwise they're pretty damned worthless.
I wish it was comedy - it feels more like tragedy.
These morons think they can redefine the Constitution to suit their politics. They're in denial that the United States is a democracy and thier fantasy will be denied. Democrats will lose seats in the midterm elections, but they will retain control. HCR can't be repealed - it would take the signature of the president. As more and more of the bill comes on line, it will become as popular as Medicare and Social Security.
Therin lies the rub. These clowns don't think we live in a demcracy. They won't be able to move the country far to the right at the ballot box. And they won't accept it easily. There will be blood in the streets before we are done. Hutaree was just the start. I predict we will see domestic right-wing terrorism on a large scale this decade.
You are using pronouns 'you' and 'that' without any reference.
Can you clarify for those of us who aren't clairvoyant?
You stated their would be bloodshed due to rightwing extremists. Why you do something to instigate trouble Kreskin?
You do remember what you wrote?
I made a prediction - how you interpret that as 'something to instigate' is not clear. If you want me to give you a link to an article on the rise of right-wing militarism, I would be happy to educate you.
That's not a foregone conclusion. There may be a single serious incident, but if that happens the rest of the animals will be rounded up and thrown into their beloved privatized prisons.
Fortunately, we grant a lot of leeway for free speech, or some of our friends here would be posting from cells now. They won't be cuffed unless they are involved in at least planning a violent acts.
The legal distinction between free speech and planning murder will be lost on most wingnuts - which means the kooks who don't get picked up in early rounds will migrate to random violence later when their teabagging heros who DID plan violence get free government housing with bars on the windows.
I don't think the folks who idolize a child-molester in Waco and a mass murderer who took down a federal building in OK City will back down when their 'leaders' are arrested. I hope I am wrong.
And don't forget the United States is a democracy!
It's a good thing you can't be taken serious or I may lose my temper reading your stand-up material.
Do not be mistaken Duggy You do not have any friends!
Unlike impotent socialists with nothing to do but engage in verbal masturbation.
It was in ALL the papers.... I'm amazed you didn't read about it.
Do not worry Duggy we will not let the current regime change our Constitution. Good Looking out for our rights Duggy
No you are delusional to believe we are a Democracy Flapjack!
I just told You Bozo this is not a Democracy why don't you study a little history. I can see by your age that you were probably there!
Place the pistol against the roof of your mouth before firing. Do not count on a temple shot sometimes they ricochet.
Is it true that the government and the administration have no regulatory control over pricing included in this health care bill.
That's something I heard on the radio but didn't get to hear the whole news segment.
Yes and No. What's in the bill -
"Insurance standards will require your insurance provider to dedicate a minimum of 80-85% of your premiums to care, not administration and CEO salaries. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-mcn … 13405.html
What's NOT in the bill is a precess of direct regulation of premium increases except that they conform to the standard above.
In other words no socialism.
I TOOK THE TIME TO VIEW the article that really didn't uncover the true effect of the healthcare bill.I don't believe that Larry gave a fair and accurate report. Do you really believe that 15% for overhead and profit will be left after all the bills are paid. Will the government guarantee the insurance companies 15% and any cost over the 85% will be picked up by the government (taxpayer ). Don't forget that profit is good because the government ( for doing nothing and assuming no risk )gets a income tax cut of the money.
Larry appears to be biased when reporting on the bill. Check his bio out.
Larry McNeely is U.S. PIRG's Health Care Advocate, coordinating the organization's FEDERAL-LEVEL advocacy, communications and organizing on health reform. Based in Washington, D.C., Mr. McNeely LOBBIES Congress for legislation that will tame rising health costs, and offer consumers better choices in the health care marketplace.
His areas of expertise include Health Reform, Health Spending and the Economy, Prescription Drugs and Medical Device Issues, POLITICS of Health Reform, Health Insurance Industry Practices, Health Care Payment and Delivery Reform.
Prior to joining U.S. PIRG, Mr. McNeely dedicated nearly a decade of his life to work as a COMMUNITY ACTIVEST,POLITICAL ORGANIZER, and UNION REPRESENTATIVE . He has earned a Masters of Public Administration degree from West Virginia University and studied international development and health promotion in RURAL INDIA through the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Studies in International Development Program.
CASE CLOSED ON THIS ONE FOR NOW.
I just heard an African American guy on the radio. He said he was at a Tea Party rally in New Hampshire, and someone was handing out fake dollar bills. They had president Obama's picture on it, and in the corners were pieces of chicken and watermelon.
I've heard those kind of references here on my local blog too, btw...pretend that isn't racist- go ahead.
This black guy said he didn't feel welcomed at all.
And I'll bet I wouldn't be welcome either, if I showed up with a sign saying "Prosecute Bush".
Or "Torture is illegal". Or "Bush Illegally wiretapped out phones"...anything like that.
No, they couldn't be bothered to protest then.
And of course those who did protest were called traitors.
So this tea bag rally in Boston? I have no support for it, no respect for it, think they are a bunch of big phonies...Until I see a sign protesting Bush, they are full of * as far as I'm concerned.
Well you man Obama voted for that wiretap and expanded it under his administration! Maybe you should picket the white house, or is wire tapping okay when it's done by a liberal?
Obama is far from perfect, but he's much better than the alternatives.
You miss the point. The time to say no was before it was implemented. Once you let that horse out of the barn, there's no bringing it back.
This is the problem i have with you baggers!
Where were you when all this was going down?
If it's so bad now, why was it ok when it originated?
And if you say you are just seeing it now, then why let the originators off the hook???
It's so phony to me.
"Yeah, that kid over there threw a rock through the window, but the kid next to him picked up a rock too. Let the kid who picked up a rock take all the blame." !!!
Well you're ASSUMING I supported the Patriot Act passed under Bush, which I did not! I also wrote Obama on it while he was campaigning asking him not to vote for it, and he did.
"Do you really believe that 15% for overhead and profit will be left after all the bills are paid. Will the government guarantee the insurance companies 15% and any cost over the 85% will be picked up by the government (taxpayer ). Don't forget that profit is good because the government ( for doing nothing and assuming no risk )gets a income tax cut of the money."
Nobody said there is ANY guarantee to the Insurance Companies. Your reading comprehension is weak, I think. But the Government will step in when the Insurance Companies are skimming off MORE than 15% of premiums for overhead. HCR was not passed to protect the Insurance industry - it was passed to protect the consumer.
I was responding to a question from Padrino (TK) about whether or not HCR as passed includes regulatory controls over premiums. I did not offer my opinion - Padrino wanted facts, I presume. The factual answer from someone you recognized as ...
"His areas of expertise include Health Reform, Health Spending and the Economy, Prescription Drugs and Medical Device Issues, POLITICS of Health Reform, Health Insurance Industry Practices, Health Care Payment and Delivery Reform."
His determination - not mine - there is only indirect price controls - the allowed 15% overhead - and not direct premium or rate hike controls. You offered no factual rebuttal to that.
I added MY opinion - that the facts show that health Care Reform is NOT socialism.
Does it bother you that Obama is wiretapping your phone? He extended the Patriot Act.
Yes it bothers me greatly!
However, I have infinitely more trust in this JusticeDepartment than the last one.
And I read an article where Holder said they had to continue it for security reasons, but they removed some of the more agregious all-encompassing wiretapping, and narrowed the scope....where I read that, i can't remember..could find it I guess.
This current administration operates on a whole different level, imo.
I cannot for the life of me see how the whole country isn't relieved that the last one is gone. It was horrifying to live through that!
And the Tea bags think they have the market on distaste for their gvt.?
They just have it now---
I had it then. I am not complaining now.
And you are not giving this gvt. a chance!
Don't care if you agree or disagree, that is funny
Maybe one of you geniuses can explain to me how it is that america is NOT a democracy.
Well, that's misleading, because I know you can't. We are a democracy, as long as we can keep it.
No we are a republic which is different than a democracy. In a democracy the majority rules in a republic the minority also has a voice which is why each state has 2 senators regardless of it's population or it's economy.
Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). (Wikipedia)
A republic is a type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country  and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.(Wikipedia)
The US is a Republic that is run by democratically elected politicians (except Bush of course)
Does that help - this little red herring has about run its course I think. Every time the TK/Padrino/Sab oh/etc/etc clones finds itself on its back foot with its poor arguments, normally without facts to back them up, it drops in one of these.
What? I don't get the connection you're trying to make. There are two senators from each state to protect minority and individual rights?
That's not correct, at least not as stated. There are two senators from each state to better represent that state's interest, and only two per and not based on the size or population of a state to give each state equal representation.
The senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states, while the House represents the actual people, which is why it's called the Peoples' House or the Peoples' Congress. Since the House represents the people, our representatives are elected per state based on each state's population. Whereas states with smaller populations felt they would be under-represented in congress, so for the senate they kept it at two per state regardless of population. Since both houses must pass any legislation, this gives both all of the people representation, theoretically, and also gives each state equal representation.
We have two from each state intead of just one for obvious reasons, and their terms are always different. This avoids putting too much of the state's power into any one man's hands. What if he went rogue or got sick or his horse threw a shoe on his way to an important vote?
So the only way having two senators from each state is supposed to protect minority rights, is in that it provides for equal representation in congress from each state, thereby protecting the representation rights of MINORITY STATES, but it has nothing to do with protecting the rights of minority peoples themselves.
Sure we're a republic, but the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri … emrep.html
Does that explain it well enough?
Lexrex? A link to a far-right christian extremist website who espouses that their imaginary god should rule our country?
Yeah that'd take care of minority rights.
I read part of your article, till I had read far enough to be certain that all they're doing is using their own definitions.
Nice job tracing the source there to radical Christians.
You see the link between the teabagggers and the radical wing of Christians who want to impose their religious views on society at large.
These radicals can't acheve majority status so they are trying to deny the concept that we live in a Democracy. There's an active faction trying to deny the separation of Church and State (See my Hub 'Thy Will Be Done').
Palin's support is primarily from evangelicals. The war in 2012 will be over the future of the USA as a secular democracy or a Christian Theocracy. But it's a proxy war. Behind the teabagger/evangelicals is the multinationals who don't want oversight or regulation and the VERY wealthy top 1% who are out to protect their empires.
Ron, who's "TK"?
I keep seeing you (and/or someone else?) accusing Padrino of being "TK".....
I could assume you Ron are someone other than who you post as, too.
Your views parallel several other posters here....
You may of course assume whatever you like. Hell, I might even be you.
Before TK was permanently banned from HP (as he has been from many online forums) he posted thousands of times in an easily identifiable way. He cannot disguise his M.O. no matter how hard he tries.
Not that I care who you think I am but I would tell you you are wrong/mistaken/deluded.
TK, how have you been? Still spanning the great divide I see.
Don't bother. Some of these folks have some 'inside joke' going on that they apparently think is hilarious enough to repeat endlessly. Just let them make fools of themselves.
Glad you agree. Being a closet TK must come with a lot of pressure.
Where and how did you come to the wrong conclusion that I was TK? I can't be in two places at once and I guarantee my IP would most likely come from a different part of the Country or at least a different city.
Care to find out?
Ahhhhhh Haaaaa. Alas, I knew him when.......
by Onusonus 4 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by Onusonus 3 hours ago
I hate racism, I hate racist people, I think the Civil War was over slavery. I've seen this country embrace the self evident truth that all men are created equal, and the doctrine of Martin Luther King, until now.People get fired from their jobs and shunned from society (rightfully so) for spouting...
by collegedad 5 years ago
Has Obama developed a "King Complex"?I heard this today in reference to the 23 executive orders he just signed. Any thoughts?
by ahorseback 3 weeks ago
One guaranteed way for Democrats to stop their down hill slide on the political capital slope where they have sat since 2016 : Go Further towards the left ?Can you spell political suicide ?
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
According to the Constitution, we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights.Where do rights come from, if not God?The Government?Where do rights come from according to atheists?Wondering.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|