DNC "Stealing Democracy" Ad Rips Chamber of Commerce, Republicans

[FrankRep]

A Democratic National Committee ad on YouTube says it seems the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using foreign money to help Republican candidates. by Jack Kenny


DNC "Stealing Democracy" Ad Rips Chamber, Republicans (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4859-dnc-stealing-democracy-ad-rips-chamber-republcans)


Jack Kenny | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
12 October 2010


A YouTube ad that has generated a lot of attention in the major news media accuses the U.S. Chamber of conspiring with GOP operatives Karl Rove, former political adviser to President George W. Bush, and former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie for the purpose of "Stealing Democracy."

The ad, sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, calls the Chamber "shills for big business" who have joined "Bush cronies" Rove and Gillespie to spend "millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress." The video includes a scene of a man stealing a woman's pocketbook in a dimly lit public garage. The narrator tells viewers "it appears they even take in secret foreign money to influence our elections."

As noted in The Washington Post, the phrase "it appears" indicates the Democrats are not actually accusing the Chamber or the Republicans of talking illegal foreign contributions. They're just saying "it appears" that way. "There's no sourcing text at the bottom of the screen, which is usually a big clue that there's little-to-no proof behind the claim," the Post article said. Yet the ad goes on to say: "It's incredible, Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce, stop stealing our Democracy."

The DNC ad, posted on YouTube last Friday (October 8), follows the line taken by President Obama the previous day. The New York Times reported that in campaign stops Thursday Obama cited a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group about fundraising by the Chamber, a frequently vocal critic of the President and his policies.

"Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations," Obama said. "So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections." The President raised the issue again in a rally in Philadelphia on Sunday.

"They are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads … just attacking people without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads," Obama said of the Republicans "You don't know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

"In fact," the Times article said, "the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance."

The blog detailed the chamber's overseas memberships, "but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns," the Times reported. "Still, liberal groups like MoveOn.org pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chamber's offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself."

Franken has called for an investigation by the Federal Election Commission, Newsmax.com reported, while Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, is seeking a probe by the Internal Revenue Service. In its lead editorial Monday, The Wall Street Journal took aim at the threat of having the U.S. Chamber besieged by government auditors.

"Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents," The Journal said about what it called an "attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls." Gillespie made a similar argument in an op ed piece appearing today (Tuesday) in The Washington Post:



The fate awaiting Democrats in November is a result of their dismal economic record and their arrogance, the former RNC chairman wrote. "One reason voters are deserting President Obama in droves is because of fears of unfettered, invasive government power — fears that will only be reinforced by the Democrats' new political vigilantism.


On CBS's Face the Nation Sunday, host Bob Schieffer asked David Axelrod, political adviser to the President, if the White House had any evidence that foreign money is underwriting ads for Republican candidates.

"Well, do you have any evidence it's not, Bob?" Axelrod replied.

The tactic is not new, as The Times noted. The President's conservative foes raised the issue two years ago, suggesting Obama's online fundraising efforts during the 2008 campaign may have pulled in illegal contributions from foreign nationals. "No allegations were substantiated," The Times reported.

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," said Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the Chamber, who accused Obama of "smear tactics." Rove called the accusation against the Chamber baseless and "a desperate ploy" by the Democrats.

Obama raised the issue of foreign money in U.S. political campaigns early this year when he said in his State of the Union address that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, striking down as unconstitutional a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, may have opened the door to previously illegal expenditures by foreign corporations. Other federal election laws, however, prohibit foreign contributions and the Supreme Court said in the Citizens United case it was not ruling on the constitutionality of such bans.

"We need not reach the question of whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court in the 5-4 ruling.

Obama, in his recent statements, has merely been trying to call attention to the inadequacy of campaign finance disclosure laws, according to White House legal counsel Bob Bauer. "The president was not suggesting any illegality," Bauer told The Times. But White House spokesman Joshua Earnest called on the Chamber to go beyond the requirements of the law to show that no foreign funds are being used for its ads.

"They can put this to rest," said Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman. "They have the keys to the file cabinet."


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4859-dnc-stealing-democracy-ad-rips-chamber-republcans

[oyarde]

The DNC should be experts in theft and corruption , that is certain . Listening to the DNC , the largest socialist / communist organization for an opinion on anything would be ridiculous . I doubt union people or some democrats even believe them to be credible .

[torchbearer]

i'm all for destroying democracy, which is apparently all about stealing.
Funny to see the thieves pointing their criminal fingers this direction.

[FrankRep]

Chamber of Commerce: The White House Wants Our Donor Lists So Its Allies Can Intimidate Our Donors (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/chamber-of-commerce-the-white-house-wants-our-donor-lists-so-its-allies-can-intimidate-our-donors.html)

ABC News
October 13, 2010

[AGRP]

I thought we lived in a Republic.

[FrankRep]

I thought we lived in a Republic.

You are correct.


A Republic, If You Can Keep It - The American Form of Government
YouTube - A Republic, If You Can Keep It - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0)

[nobody's_hero]

i'm all for destroying democracy, which is apparently all about stealing.
Funny to see the thieves pointing their criminal fingers this direction.

dang it! they're on to us.:D

[Danke]

I thought we lived in a Republic.

Some of us do. But most live in the Democracy.

[ClayTrainor]

I thought we lived in a Republic.

A democratic republic...

[FrankRep]

A democratic republic...

Constitutional Republic.



Some of us do. But most live in the Democracy.

The future of America:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

[Danke]

The future of America:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

It is unfolding (unraveling?) before our very own eyes...

[ClayTrainor]

Constitutional Republic.

Sure, a constitutional democratic republic. :p

Through what process are the "representatives" elected? ;)



The future of America:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

Can the same thing not be said about most republics in history, as well?

[Brian4Liberty]

This will probably make for some interesting CFR meetings. Don't forget, the US Chamber of Commerce is the lobbying arm of the global corporatists. Is this just a show to re-enforce the false left/right paradigm? Or does it prove that when it comes down to the details, there is a left/right split in the Oligarchy? Latter seems more likely.

[FrankRep]

Sure, a constitutional democratic republic. :p
Through what process are the "representatives" elected? ;)

Constitution Republics allow voting silly. You vote for a local representative and they choose the Senators and the President. (Before Democracy took over)

THUS:

The future of America:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams



Can the same thing not be said about most republics in history, as well?

Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq)

[ClayTrainor]

Constitution Republics allow voting silly.

Right, they allow for democracy with the intent of imposing Constitutional rules and limitations.



Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.


Has a similar course of events ever not occured to a republic?

[FrankRep]

Right, they allow for democracy with the intent of imposing Constitutional rules and limitations.

I hope not. You may vote to destroy my rights in a Democracy.


Has a similar course of events ever not occured to a republic?

A Constitutional Republic is a relatively new concept for a Government. That's why America was called the "Great Experiment."

[ClayTrainor]

I hope not. You may vote to destroy my rights in a Democracy.

How are the local representatives supposed to be elected?

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary



A Constitutional Republic is a relatively new concept for a Government. That's why America was called the "Great Experiment."


You vote for a local representative and they choose the Senators and the President. (Before Democracy took over)


Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.

To me, it looks like you already acknowledge that America is currently following the same path as the Roman Republic.

I'll ask again...


Has a similar course of events ever not occured to a republic?

[FrankRep]

How are the local representatives supposed to be elected?

"Voting" for local representatives doesn't mean a "Democracy." The Constitution (The Law) rules, not a Democratic Majority (aka: Mob Rule).


To me, it looks like you already acknowledge that America is currently following the same path as the Roman Republic.

Yes, American EMPIRE is following the same path as the Roman EMPIRE. Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.


Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

[ClayTrainor]

"Voting" for local representatives doesn't mean a "Democracy."

According to google dictionary it does.


The Constitution (The Law) rules, not a Democratic Majority (aka: Mob Rule).

Do the local representatives not need a democratic majority in order to get elected?



Yes, American EMPIRE is following the same path as the Roman EMPIRE.

And they both started out as republics, right?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

People must return to the religious origins of the country and our higher civic purpose irregardless of what the constitution says.

[FrankRep]

"Voting" for local representatives doesn't mean a "Democracy." The Constitution (The Law) rules, not a Democratic Majority (aka: Mob Rule).


According to google dictionary it does.

Democracy has a larger meaning than "just voting for representatives." Constitutional Republics also allow voting, but the LAW rules not a Democratic Majority (aka: Mob Rule).

That's the big difference. The Law vs. Mob Rule

[ClayTrainor]

Democracy has a larger meaning than "just voting for representatives."

Democracy is any form of ELECTED government, through a majority vote process.



Constitutional Republics also allow voting, but the LAW rules not a Democratic Majority (aka: Mob Rule).


Do the local representatives not need a majority vote? How respectful have these elected representatives been towards the constitution?



That's the big difference. The Law vs. Mob Rule

So are there any republics that haven't gone the way of democracy?

[FrankRep]

Democracy is any form of ELECTED government.

That's a lie. Democracy is "Majority Rules."



Do the local representatives not need a majority vote?

Voting exists in many forms of Government.


So are there any republics that haven't gone the way of democracy?

Democracy is not a Republic. They are two different forms of Government.

[ClayTrainor]

That's a lie. Democracy is "Majority Rules."

A lie? Getting a tad confrontational now, are we?

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary

Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." - Dictionary.Com



Voting exists in many forms of Government.


That's not an answer to my question...



Democracy is not a Republic. They are two different forms of Government.

That's not what I asked, and you know it.



You vote for a local representative and they choose the Senators and the President. (Before Democracy took over)



Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.

I'll ask again


So are there any republics that haven't gone the way of democracy?

I think you know the answer to this question, but it's hard for you to admit...

[FrankRep]

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary

Google Dictionary is describing a "Representative Democracy," which can be just a dangerous as "Direct Democracy."

In a Constitutional Republic, your Representatives aren't allowed to violate people's rights either just because the Mob (Majority) wants something.


I'll repeat the wisdom of John Adams.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

[CCTelander]

In a Constitutional Republic, your Representatives aren't allowed to violate people's rights either just because the Mob (Majority) wants something.



What's to stop them?

[ClayTrainor]

Frank, I assure you that I will answer any question you address to me as honestly as possible. If you're not going to answer my questions, then there is no real conversation taking place here. You seem to have ignored/dodged every single question in my last 2 posts. :(


Google Dictionary is describing a "Representative Democracy," which can be just a dangerous as "Direct Democracy."

Google is specifically defining the word "Democracy". So was dictionary.com. So is websters dictionary.

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Websters dictionary



In a Constitutional Republic, your Representatives aren't allowed to violate people's rights either just because the Mob (Majority) wants something.

Does the representative get chosen by a majority? Do these elected Representatives have a tendency to respect the Constitution?



Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams

And unless you can provide an example to the contrary, all republics have turned into democracies, or something even worse.



You vote for a local representative and they choose the Senators and the President. (Before Democracy took over)


Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.

[FrankRep]

In a Constitutional Republic, your Representatives aren't allowed to violate people's rights either just because the Mob (Majority) wants something.


What's to stop them?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

[CCTelander]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"


That doesn't really answer my question. It's much too vague and ambiguous to be of any practical value.

SPECIFICALLY, what's to stop them?

[FrankRep]

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Websters dictionary

Websters dictionary described two forms of Democracy: Direct Democracy and a Representative Democracy.

Again, BOTH are just a dangerous. America was created to be a Constitutional Republic, which rejects both forms of Democracy.



Does the representative get chosen by a majority? Do these elected Representatives have a tendency to respect the Constitution?

The majority does choose the local representative, but that representative isn't allowed to violate the law even if the Majority wants him to; therefore it's not a Representative Democracy.



And unless you can provide an example to the contrary, all republics have turned into democracies, or something even worse.

What's your point? All people die too.

[FrankRep]

That doesn't really answer my question. It's much too vague and ambiguous to be of any practical value.

SPECIFICALLY, what's to stop them?

People knowing their rights and having the courage and faith to stand up to the government regardless of the consequences.

[ClayTrainor]

Websters dictionary described two forms of Democracy: Direct Democracy and a Representative Democracy.

And how are representatives elected in America??? :confused:



Again, BOTH are just a dangerous. America was created to be a Constitutional Republic, which rejects both forms of Democracy.


Again, are the representatives in this "constitutional republic" elected by a majority vote?



The majority does choose the local representative, but that representative isn't allowed to violate the law even if the Majority wants him to; therefore it's not a Representative Democracy.

How often do these representatives who are elected by a majority vote, actually respect the constitution?



What's your point? All people die too.



Remember, democracy a republic never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy republic yet that did not commit suicide and turn into a democracy.


And you seem to agree...


You vote for a local representative and they choose the Senators and the President. (Before Democracy took over)


Actually, no. Rome started out as a Republic, fell into a Democracy, and become an Oligarchy under the Caesars.

[CCTelander]

People knowing their rights and having the courage and faith to stand up to the government regardless of the consequences.


Okay. I can accept that.

How? Exactly how are those people going to stop the abuse of power.

And how are you going to make sure that those people exist?

[FrankRep]

And how are representatives elected in America??? :confused:

By voting, which is built into the Constitutional Republic.



Again, are the representatives in this "constitutional republic" elected by a majority vote?

Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.



How often do these representatives who are elected by a majority vote, actually respect the constitution?

The people should vote Ron Paul! :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

And how are you going to make sure that those people exist?

By voting for the right people in a non-democratic election? :p

[FrankRep]

People knowing their rights and having the courage and faith to stand up to the government regardless of the consequences.


Okay. I can accept that.

How? Exactly how are those people going to stop the abuse of power.

And how are you going to make sure that those people exist?

You have a God given right and duty to defend yourself if someone tries to hurt or kill you.

[ClayTrainor]

Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.


Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Websters dictionary

Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." - Dictionary.Com




The people should vote Ron Paul! :cool:

Not an answer to the question...

Clearly it takes more than 1 elected official to adhere to the constitution, in order to have a functioning "Constitutional Republic". So, I ask again...


How often do these representatives who are elected by a majority vote, actually respect the constitution?

[ClayTrainor]

You have a God given right and duty to defend yourself if someone tries to hurt or kill you.

What if a constitutional government tries to tax my private property?

[CCTelander]

You have a God given right and duty to defend yourself if someone tries to hurt or kill you.


I agree 100%. Well, except for the duty part.

That doesn't answer the question, however.

If I were to attempt to exercise such a right, all that would happens is that myself and my family would likely be murdered in our home, we'd be villified and dehumanized in the media, and things would go on just as before.

Problem NOT solved.

HOW is the abuse of power to be prevented or checked?

How are you going to make sure there are even enough people who are aware that it's being abused to take notice?

How are you going to make sure those people who are informed actually take action to check it?

No vague generalities. Actual specifics.

What's the detailed plan to accomplish all this?

[FrankRep]

Democracy: ....

Democracy is more than just voting on representatives.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Clearly it takes more than 1 elected official to adhere to the constitution, in order to have a functioning "Constitutional Republic". So, I ask again...

Keep on asking and I'll keep saying we need to elect Constitutionalists like Ron Paul to office.

[ClayTrainor]

Democracy is more than just voting on representatives.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Democracy is simply when the majority elects the government. There are direct democracies, and representative democracies. Representative democracies are where representatives are elected by majority vote.


Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.




Keep on asking and I'll keep saying we need to elect Constitutionalists like Ron Paul to office.

In other words, you have absolutely no interest in answering my question.

[FrankRep]

If I were to attempt to exercise such a right, all that would happens is that myself and my family would likely be murdered in our home, we'd be villified and dehumanized in the media, and things would go on just as before.

HOW is the abuse of power to be prevented or checked?


Sounds like you're describing Nazi Germany so lets find out what Godly Jews say about self defense.

YouTube - No Guns for Jews, Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhfLEV1OHdk)


[Video] No Guns for Jews - Made by: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263860

[ClayTrainor]

Sounds like you're describing Nazi Germany so lets find out what Godly Jews say about self defense.

You completely avoided his questions...

[FrankRep]

Democracy is simply when the majority elects the government. There are direct democracies, and representative democracies. Representative democracies are where representatives are elected by majority vote.

Democracy is simply Majority Rules. That opens up a whole can of worms. What if Majority rules to take away your land, kids, and your life?

Majority Rules!



In other words, you have absolutely no interest in answering my question.

In other words, we need to elect Constitutionalists to office that rejects "Majority Rules."

[CCTelander]

Sounds like you're describing Nazi Germany so lets find out what Godly Jews say about self defense.

YouTube - No Guns for Jews, Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhfLEV1OHdk)


[Video] No Guns for Jews - Made by: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263860


Why not just ask the Branch Davidians? Or Vicki Weaver?

Please.

You're just dodging the real questions and issues.

Attempt to defend yourself against the abuse of government power and you wind up dead. "Liberty advocates" bitch and moan about it for years afterward, but nobody actually DOES anything. Certainly they're never there when government thugs are murdering you.

Show me a viable plan that actually deals with the questions and issues raised.

[CCTelander]

You completely avoided his questions...


You noticed that too, eh? ;)

[FrankRep]

You completely avoided his questions...


You noticed that too, eh? ;)

You just don't like my answers, you mean.

[ClayTrainor]

Democracy is simply Majority Rules. That opens up a whole can of worms. What if Majority rules to take away your land, kids, and your life?

Majority Rules!

And what do you call it when a majority elects representatives?



In other words, we need to elect Constitutionalists to office that rejects "Majority Rules."

that is NOT an answer to my question! It's like you're not even reading my posts...


How often do these representatives who are elected by a majority vote, actually respect the constitution?

[ClayTrainor]

You just don't like my answers, you mean.

no, I mean you are flatout not answering the questions. He asked you several, you quoted one and didn't give your own rational, you just posted a video of some other guy talking.

[CCTelander]

You just don't like my answers, you mean.


No. Your answers don't actually SOLVE the problem.

How is the abuse of power to be checked, SPECIFICALLY?

Don't tell me about my "right" to self-defense. Exercising it just gets me killed. Give me a real, practical solution to that problem.

[ClayTrainor]

No. Your answers don't actually SOLVE the problem.

How is the abuse of power to be checked, SPECIFICALLY?

Don't tell me about my "right" to self-defense. Exercising it just gets me killed. Give me a real, practical solution to that problem.

Good luck getting an actual answer, bro. I gotta get to bed.

Cheers. :)

[ClayTrainor]

In other words, we need to elect Constitutionalists to office that rejects "Majority Rules."

So the Majority needs to vote for the right people, to stop the majority from ruling? LOL! :p

Good night frank. :)

[FrankRep]

Why not just ask the Branch Davidians? Or Vicki Weaver?

The Government violated their rights.
Just like the Jews had their rights violated by the Nazis.



You're just dodging the real questions and issues.

You just don't like my answers.



Attempt to defend yourself against the abuse of government power and you wind up dead.

Many good man have died in the defense of liberty. William Wallace comes to mind. As they say: "Freedom isn't free." You should know that.



"Liberty advocates" bitch and moan about it for years afterward, but nobody actually DOES anything. Certainly they're never there when government thugs are murdering you.

We need tough, fearless, and righteous men who will stand tall in the face of tyranny regardless of the consequences. These qualities are severely lacking in men today.



Show me a viable plan that actually deals with the questions and issues raised.

Show me some tough, fearless, and righteous men who will stand tall in the face of tyranny regardless of the consequences and God will provide a way to defeat the tyranny.

[FrankRep]

So the Majority needs to vote for the right people, to stop the majority from ruling? LOL! :p

Good night frank. :)

If the Majority votes to take away your house, kids, and your life, that's a Democracy. That's not allowed in a Constitutional Republic.

Your statement is complete nonsense.

[FrankRep]

This video explains the difference between a Republic vs. a Democracy.


The American Form of Government
YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[ClayTrainor]

If the Majority votes to take away your house, kids, and your life, that's a Democracy.

And if the majority votes for a representative that does the same things?


That's not allowed in a Constitutional Republic.

But doesn't it happen, regardless?

Can you show me an example of a republic that didn't turn into a democracy?



Your statement is complete nonsense.

You claim that the majority needs to elect representatives who will stop the majority from ruling.

In your own words
Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.

we need to elect Constitutionalists to office that rejects "Majority Rules.

How will these constitutionalists be elected? Majority votes, correct? So your plan seems to be to stop the majority rule, by convincing the majority to vote a certain way...

[ClayTrainor]

This video explains the difference between a Republic vs. a Democracy.

I understand, but a Republic is still a form of representative democracy, it's just not pure direct democracy.


Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Websters dictionary

Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." - Dictionary.Com

[AGRP]

Im all for Republicans stealing Democracy as long as they burn it. We're not supposed to have one to begin with.

It would be one thing they've done right within the past few decades.

[FrankRep]

I understand, but a Republic is still a form of representative democracy, it's just not pure direct democracy.

That's a lie ClayTrainor.


Listen to Ron Paul.


A Republic, Not a Democracy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2598728&postcount=23)


Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk
December 11, 2000


Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.

The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.

In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?

Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."

Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2598728&postcount=23

[ClayTrainor]

Im all for Republicans stealing Democracy. We're not supposed to have one to begin with.

How should they steal it? Don't you need to vote your representatives in with a majority vote, first?

[AGRP]

Thank's for posting ^^^


This discussion is one of the reasons why our government has gotten involved in education: They love a dumbed down brainwashed population.

No offense to anyone here.

[ClayTrainor]

That's a lie ClayTrainor.




Electing Representatives by majority vote is built into the Constitutional Republic.

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" - Google Dictionary

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Websters dictionary

Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." - Dictionary.Com




Listen to Ron Paul.


How about you listen to reason and evidence, and stop trying to let other people do your thinking for you?

[FrankRep]

"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

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams



Are We a Republic or a Democracy? (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4080)

by Walter Williams
January 5, 2005


We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.


Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.


SOURCE:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4080

[ClayTrainor]

"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

And when 51% of the people vote for representatives who take away those rights?



"Remember democracy a republic never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy republic yet that did not turn into a democracy."


Can you counter this with any evidence?

[AGRP]

And when 51% of the people vote for representatives who take away those rights?



Can you counter this with any evidence?

Are you advocating mob rule?

[ClayTrainor]

Are you advocating mob rule?

Absolutely not, I'm against democracy in all it's forms. Including the republican form of electing representatives through a majority vote.

I take it even further and say that those who are advocating a republic are advocating a democracy, either directly or indirectly. There has never been a republic in history that didn't turn into a democracy, and America is proving no different.

[FrankRep]

Democracy Is Not Freedom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html)


Rep. Ron Paul, MD
February 7, 2005


We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451528816/lewrockwell/) and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156186004/lewrockwell/), 1946.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

[ClayTrainor]

Frank, you just keep posting other peoples thoughts which do not answer any of my questions. Do you not have a mind of your own?

If Ron Paul were a member of this board, I'm sure he'd address my questions and concerns in a much more respectful fashion, than just linking to articles written by other people.

[FrankRep]

Absolutely not, I'm against democracy in all it's forms. Including the republican form of electing representatives through a majority vote.

So your agenda comes out: You're against VOTING.
Ron Paul, Walter Williams, and myself all oppose democracy as well.

[ClayTrainor]

So your agenda comes out: You're against VOTING.

Not quite, I just don't see voting as a rational solution to anything, not even restoring a republic. I'm not against voting, but I wouldn't delude myself into think it's "THE" answer to the problems we face.

It's true that I used to be against voting as a form of activism, but I was wrong and have corrected myself.




Ron Paul, Walter Williams, and myself all oppose democracy as well.

Okay Good. Me too, we're all on the same page here. However, can you demonstrate a republic that hasn't turned into a democracy?