This morning on Fox News, Gretchen and Brian (who both seem oblivious to the news they’re reporting) showed clips of Gingrich and Perry at the recent CBS debate, talking about ending all foreign aid, as if this was some big new idea. Actually, for these two candidates, it was a big new idea. Prior to that debate, they’ve supported foreign aid. So, again, we have flip-flopping candidates and these news anchors don’t take them to task for that, just that they are now against foreign aid.

As most of us know, Ron Paul, is the only candidate who’s been against foreign aid for decades, but this fact doesn’t get mentioned. What also doesn’t get mentioned is that Ron Paul’s ideas are continuing to be used by the other candidates: auditing the Federal Reserve, cutting trillions in spending, eliminating unconstitutional government departments (like Energy & Education),  and now ending Foreign Aid. The fact is, the other candidates are coming around to Ron Paul’s way of thinking because they know that Ron Paul’s voice is resonating with the American people.

The problem is, the lamestream media won’t let America hear Ron Paul! They want America to continue the path it’s on, where corporatocracy (corporations & government collusion) rules and the American people lose.  We must hold the media’s feet to the fire and call, fax and email them that we want to hear Ron Paul’s viewpoint and to quit shutting him out. If that doesn’t work, we must stop supporting them and they’re commercial interests (those companies paying for advertising). We must follow the immortal words of Howard Beale, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore”.

Here are some other recent examples of the lamestream media blackout:

Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed

Cries of debate “fixing” following the CBS debate, Saturday, Nov. 12.

Ron Paul Media Blackout

Here is a good interview with Ron Paul.

What do you think? I think this is our next President!

Here is my latest podcast.

Please let me know what you think!

I’ll be the first to admit, I liked President George W. Bush. He was obviously faced with a set of very bad circumstances while trying to lead our country, starting with the attacks on 9/11. Some things he did right, namely trying to rally the citizens of America to face the newly found threat of Islamic terrorism on our own shores. Some things he did wrong, namely abandoning free market principles to save the free market. We can all see how that worked out. The economy went into a nosedive and the resulting fallout helped sweep Barack Obama into the White House.

During the campaign in 2008, I heard and read a lot of comments that sounded very similar. They were along the lines of “maybe it’s a good thing to have a Democrat in the White House. After all, how much damage can one man do in four years”. Many of us tried to warn our readers about the danger we saw in Barack Obama. We were told we were racist, bigoted, you name the adjective. Even pointing out his complete lack of experience (unless you count community organizer) failed to dissuade voters. Looking back at the last three years, even we couldn’t have dreamed Barack Obama would take us as far down the road towards destroying our country as he has.

Actually, the path our current President has traveled has been blazed well before his time. For many years, we have seen a gradual shift of power and influence away from the states and a constitutionally limited federal government and toward a federal government that is all encompassing in it’s power and influence. It seems we have a department and a bureaucracy for everything under the sun and President Obama has no qualms about adding to the list. So, to those who said four years wouldn’t matter, I point you to the evidence, should you choose to see what is right in front of your face, of how wrong you were. To those who would say another fours will not make a difference, I would advise this. If Barack Obama has moved us so far and so fast down this path, how quickly do you think he will move in his second term, when he doesn’t have to worry about reelection?

In my heart of hearts, this is why I believe it is so important that we elect the right man for President in 2012. I fear our country can not withstand another four years of Barack Obama. Following that same line of thought, I fear our country can not withstand another four years of anyone who may very well steer our country down the same path, albeit more slowly. Combined with the fact that our country has already been on this path for years, that is why I believe it is important for us to elect a President who will not only put the brakes on the train, but also put it in reverse and go 180° in the other direction. That person would be none other than Ron Paul.

I didn’t used to think this way. I questioned some of his positions, especially on foreign policy. In recent weeks, I have been reexamining my opposition to those positions and I can only conclude that I have been wrong. If there is one thing you can depend on, it is this. Ron Paul stands by his convictions. Looking at his past, it can not be argued otherwise. As a way of explanation, I want to quote one blogger’s opinion of Ron Paul. This comes from theCL, who writes at The Classic Liberal.

Just a thought on Ron Paul and foreign policy … If Paul has proven anything to the American people over the years, he’s proven that he doesn’t budge on his convictions and beliefs. Compromise, to Paul, doesn’t mean giving in and accepting something else. He’s from the old school, where compromise means that you may not get everything you want, but you still move forward toward your goal. In other words, in compromise you get something.

While his methods may be different than what we’re used to, it should be obvious that he’d be the most hard-nosed negotiator with foreign leaders we’ve witnessed in our lifetimes. Paul has never been known to waiver. For example, even though he opposed attacking Iraq, he defended Bush’s stance that he didn’t need approval from the UN.

Add to the fact he doesn’t like the UN, the globalists, and all the other world collectivist nonsense, and you’ve got one serious president who puts America first.

I can not stress how much I agree with those statements. They mainly concern foreign policy, but I believe they would hold true in Ron Paul’s dealings with domestic policy as well. Because of his unwavering stance and insisting our country needs to actually follow the Constitution, and because of his vast knowledge of economics, we need him in the White House.

I have no intention of throwing stones at the other candidates who are vying for the Republican nomination for President. No doubt they are good men and women and no doubt, some of them want to change our country for the better. However, can we honestly say they have the qualifications to reverse the path we are on, or a plan to implement that reversal? Some of them are more conservative than others, but do they actually have the backbone to stand up and do what is right for America? Ron Paul does.

Ask yourself this question. Picture in your mind how different our country would be after four years of President Ron Paul. He may not have the style of some of the other candidates, or of President Obama, but he outshines them all with his substance. It is with that substance that he would dare to make a difference. That is why the presidential election of 2012 is so important.

Hey Readers!

Back on September 30th, 2011 I was outraged when I found out that President Obama ordered the assassination of alleged terrorist Anwar Awlaki. This was a United States citizen that was targeted by a drone and killed without due process of law. He had not been convicted of any crime nor had it been proven that he was even connected to one. He just happened to be on a “list.”

Well, on October 14th, 2011 Awlaki’s 16 year old son shared his Fathers fate. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by U.S. airstrikes while eating dinner with a group of his teenage friends. Yes, a group of teenagers…assassinated. What has this country become?

Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was born in Denver Colorado. He was an American citizen just as his Father Anwar. Here is an image of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki’s actual birth certificate showing where he was born. Even more proof of a US birth than our own President can produce.

Washington Post: In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki last month, his 16-year old son ran away from the family home in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa to try to find him, relatives say. When he, too, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, the Awlaki family decided to speak out for the first time since the attacks.

“To kill a teenager is just unbelieveable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awalaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.

Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was trying to locate his father. He was probably very scared and worried as a son would be if his father was missing. Yet, again with no due process or proof of any wrong doing, he was assassinated. 16 years old! This just makes my blood boil.

When Anwar Awlaki was assassinated it made headlines all over the world, yet I never heard about Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki’s assassination until yesterday when I happened onto a blog that I read occasionally. Is it because the government knows this is wrong? Is it to try and cover up the fact that this is happening more than we know? Or was it because they do not feel this would be as well received by the American public and defeat their agenda?

It is hard for me to understand. I want to go to the White House and scream at the top of my lungs how wrong this is. How can we allow this to happen? How can the whole world not see what monsters the U.S. has become. Can we really be surprised that so many want to kill us? Can we not understand that this makes us weaker in our defense?

When we open the pages of this book, nothing good can come of it. A whole new precedence has been adopted, and most Americans do not even realize that WE can end up on the very same list just by speaking out against our government. We can end up on the same list for simply asking the wrong questions. When will we finally all stand up to this tyranny? Will it take this happening on our own soil to someone we know personally?

The person approving these attacks, Barak Obama, is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Should this now not be revoked? This man should be stripped of all titles and power as he is putting all of our safety on the line with these un-justified actions.

It seems that we have become so numb and blood thirsty in this country all in the name of “the war on terror.” We cheer when these things happen and celebrate cold blooded murder like it is Patriotic. If this is what we are to become, I fear for the future of this country. I fear for the future generations that will have this blood to clean from their innocent hands.

Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was just a teenager. He was on Facebook. He was a happy kid who liked Harry Potter movies, The Gladiator and Troy. He enjoyed  the series Lost, The Simpsons and Spongebob. He will never know adulthood.

Is this the foreign policy of peace and democracy? Is this the message we want to send to the world? Do we really want to be the bullies of the world? So many neo-cons think that we have to show our muscles or we will be perceived as weak. What if instead we showed our hearts. What if instead we taught peace by example?

Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes in a peaceful foreign policy. He understands that we cannot be the policeman of the world, and not just because we cannot afford it, but because it is not how you spread peace. All we are doing is putting ourselves in danger making enemies around the world, and this will eventually backfire on us unless we stop it now.

Ron Paul is the ONLY one who is going to do that. Please visit HERE and read about Ron’s foreign policy. It will actually strengthen our defense, not weaken it as you will hear from so many un-confident neo-cons who want to continue the American Empire.

What do you think about this? Did you even know this happened? What do you think we should do about it?

UPDATE 10.27.2011: 
Here is a CNN report on the assassination of the Awlaki’s.

UPDATE 10.29.11:
Please DEMAND that congress press for an investigation into this assassination. Not just because he was a US citizen, but because he was a child. Please sign this petition.
http://www.petition2congress.com/5410/investigate-death-abdulrahman-anwar-alawlaki/ 

PODCAST: Episode 1
In this podcast Peter Schiff will explain how the Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan contains a HIDDEN 9!

You will also hear about the Ron Paul Black This Out money bomb on October 19th. Be sure you pledge by going to this site:

http://www.blackthisout.com/users/politicalwd

I was laying in bed and just could not sleep. I am literally sick to my stomach thinking that we are now going to go into Iran militarily. I predict this will happen soon if history is any indicator at all, which it usually is. I hope I am wrong.

But what can I do about it? Who can I tell to STOP?

The mainstream media and the Obama administration are really pumping up the war propaganda to feed to the American people to get them to back it, and reading comments online it looks like it is working…again.

I feel like I want to go to the White House with a megaphone and yell at the top of my lungs to STOP THESE SENSELESS WARS! STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! LET THEIR PEOPLE LIVE! I know where this would get me however, and that is in jail. My voice would not be heard because mainstream media would not cover that. It does not fit their “agenda.”

Seems they are trying to create yet another “false flag” operation to sell to those who are willing to buy it.

It is all based on lies. All of the information they are giving us about this so called “plot” to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by a failed used car salesman from Texas who has had a drinking problem in the past, a slew of unpaid parking tickets and a history of liking prostitutes and who also just happens to be an Iranian born citizen has no substance.

According to “intel” this guy worked with Iranian intelligence to hire Mexican drug cartel members for something like $1.5 Million to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC. I mean this part of the story alone makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I am not “intelligence.”

Think about that. You have a cartel that is making upwards of $40Billion a year delivering drugs, and they are going to risk an assassination on US soil, in Washington DC no less, which is the heaviest police staffed city in America for a measly $1.5Million? Well, I am not buying it. You shouldn’t either!

There are many friends and even the wife of Manssor Arabsiar, the man in question who was going to carry out this plot, who claim the guy was just an absent minded drunk who had lots of minor violations like unpaid parking tickets etc. but lacked the capacity to pull off anything of this magnitude.

And once again, like the case of US citizen Anwar Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen just weeks ago, they have nothing to show the American citizens or the media that proves any of what they are saying. Nothing! It is all based on “classified information” that we will never see. Does this not scare you? Does our President really have this much power? If you are not worried…you should be!

Manssor Arabsiar is currently being detained, and who knows how long that could be. This guy is a patsy for sure and we do not even know how he is being treated or if he has a lawyer or anything! It just seems that the government works in such secrecy these days and that too should not be acceptable. These people work FOR US, not the other way around.

Are they setting us up to go into Iran and then Mexico? What is going on here? Is anyone going to hold them accountable? Is ANYONE going to ask them the hard questions and DEMAND proof? Is all of this some elaborate plot to cover up the Fast and Furious incident?

Let’s say for argument sake this is all indeed true. Let’s say Iran did indeed plot to assassinate one of their enemies on our precious American soil…well did we not just do that with Awlaki? Do we have double standards? Are we to think we are the ONLY ones who can target our so called enemies for assassination on other nations soil? Is this the example we want to set around the world?

We are not making many friends in this world with our constant Empire building. If anything we are making us weaker and weaker as a nation because more and more people are going to hate us. Not for our freedom, but for the simple fact that we are occupying their land and forcing our “democracy” on them in the name of “peace.”

We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in these countries. What would we do if someone did that here? (see video below) We would not take it. We would stand up against it. Why do we not expect them to?

Many Americans just sit back and yell and scream for their blood like we are spectators at the Roman colosseum watching gladiators fight to the death. That is how I see this whole “war on terror.” Are we the Roman Empire? The Nazis? When does it end? When our economy completely crashes?

We need to get out of these wars. I want to let the Iranian people know right now that I do not condone any of this and I am sorry for the choices our government has made…I would have spread a message of peace by example, not militarily.

This is why we NEED Ron Paul. He has to become the next President of the United States as I feel any of the others will push the status quo and continue to weaken us as a nation so badly that we will soon be fighting World War III on our own soil, and I do not want to fight people who I have no issue with.

Ron Paul is the ONLY top tier candidate who wants to end these wars. All of the others believe that we need to continue to be the policeman of the world. We need to stand with him and put an end to this. He is our ONLY hope!

Some will say that one man cannot make a difference, but I know different. Look at what Ghandi or Martin Luther King accomplished. They had a message that they did not force on people…people took their message and made it their own. They did not follow these individuals, they walked beside them. We need to walk beside Ron Paul.

Watch this video as it speaks VOLUMES about how the nations feel that we continue to occupy.

I feel in my heart that this is the most important election of my lifetime and yours. The reason I feel this is because if we get even 4 more years of the same thing we have now, we are going to crash economically and spin into a depression like none we have ever seen making us defenseless. This is just like the Roman Empire when it fell. They expanded themselves right into failure. I do not want to be a citizen of another country…I want to keep THIS country…but if Ron Paul does not win, I fear we will lose it.

Visit http://RonPaul2012.com to learn more about this great man. We need your help and support. Join the ORIGINAL Revolution and lets restore our Republic before it’s too late!

On September 30, 2011, US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was hunted down by a US drone armed with Hellfire missles and killed. He was reportedly a terrorist and a threat to the United States.

However, how, exactly do we know he was a terrorist? Could this information be wrong? What if all Anwar al-Awlaki wanted was peace and freedom just as we desire here in the US, and he was simply speaking out against the US foreign policy and actions?

What if he was put on a list for no other reason but standing up for that right?

Was there proof that he had a violent past? I cannot seem to find anything outside opinions of the mainstream media pundits who say al-Awlaki may have communicated with known terrorists and may have even been involved in recruiting members of Al-Qaeda. If he was indeed a criminal and a “terrorist” then why was he not arrested and tried?

Is the assassination not illegal according to executive order #12333 issued by President Ronald Reagan, section 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination, which states that no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

REFERENCE: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#2.11

Here is a video that was uploaded back in July, 2011 with Awlaki speaking about why the world resents America…please watch.

This is actually the second time we have heard the news of al-Alwaki’s death. Here are 2 articles from December of 2009 stating that Awlaki was killed in pretty much the same manner. What proof do they have this time? What are we to believe?

FOXNEWS Article: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/12/24/imam-linked-ft-hood-rampage-believed-al-qaeda-killed-airstrike/

Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/200912246820930737.html

I think there are many questions that need answered. Kudos to Jake Tapper, Senior White House correspondent for ABC news. He simply asked if we were going to hear from the White House the evidence that this man, this US citizen, was indeed a terrorist.  Watch this video:

What do you think? Do you think this was justified in the name of the war on terror, or do you feel that he deserved due process? When it comes to assassinating US citizens, do you think that we deserve PROOF that he was a terrorist?

Ron Paul is NOT proposing so much sweeping change that the government is unrecognizable – He doesn’t believe that the president has any legislative power.

He is NOT proposing that we allow polluters to pollute or that we regress back to the days of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle – those kinds of abuses are not tolerable in a libertarian society either.

He is NOT proposing anarchy; he is proposing a system in which all rights are protected and upheld instead of just the rights the chosen groups the government wishes to bestow favor upon. The reason that he sounds so radical to you is because we have drifted so far away from those principles that once made this the Grand Experiment. He is proposing a return to the constitutional values that once made this country great while keeping what we have improved upon.

We are not proposing to reinstate the 3/5ths clause – that is anti-libertarian; all people are of value in a libertarian system. We are not proposing to let pollution run rampant – that is something that causes harm to others and, in effect, is an act of aggression not tolerable in such a system. We are not proposing that people hire their own chemical labs to test their food, but that the market be opened up to allow more agencies to compete with the FDA and other regulators with allowance for people to ignore such regulations if they feel informed enough – but they make THEIR OWN decision.

Most importantly, we are trying to give people back the freedoms that have been taken away from them in the course of adding false rights to the mix. There is no right to income, healthcare, or a job. To say that you have a right to another’s money, time, or property without earning or bartering for it is to moralize theft and that is not okay. If I can’t steal from my neighbor, why can my government steal from me? That’s not a slogan, by the way, it’s a factual inquiry – can you answer me why?

I have no problem voluntarily paying for roads, protection, school, or many of the other things that society provides, but being forced to pay is not ok. Something many non libertarians don’t understand – many libertarians too – is that there is a difference between forcing someone to pay for or do something as opposed to offering them many alternatives that they reject, thus causing them to chose to pay for the thing – without it being a false choice. For instance, the private and charter school movements offer choices where students and parents can send their children to schools where they believe they will better be able to perform, but the government forces those parents to prop up failing systems.

No one is asking the poor to rot in the streets, uneducated, unfed, and unclothed. What we are saying is that the regulation and governmental corruption that has plagued our country for too long is what has caused the disparity to become so difficult to overcome.

There are those who say “Who will educate our poor?” The answer is, whom ever thinks it is important to educate them. There are those who say “Who will feed our poor?” The answer is, whom ever wants to bestow such charity. There are those who say “Who will take care of the poor when they are sick?” The answer is whom ever wishes to offer such services at an affordable price – including donating time at a free clinic.

It is, however, the prerogative of each individual how much help they are willing to give. No person has any right to force someone to help someone else to help another.

Charity, however can cause dependence and when that point is reached, people should have the choice to withdraw their charity as it is no longer helping the impoverished at that point.What we do have a right to do is act as agents for those who cannot help themselves. We can use force in defense of the defenseless and, in fact, we have a duty to do so.

That does not mean showering them with money and it does not mean forcing anyone else to provide for them, it means offering our own services at our own prices (including free of charge) for their defense whether in legal or life-threatening matters against aggressors – not those who would do no good, but those who would do harm.

Furthermore, the effort to tie libertarianism to communism in an effort to stir the old red scares into new fear mongering is, frankly, kind of lame.

Contrary to misguided attacks, most of the Ron Paul supporters are those who are bucking their parent’s system. To think for ourselves, when that’s exactly what led us here. Perhaps if you actually did some research on what Dr. Paul believes and proposes you would most likely see what he really stands for, and that is freedom. YOUR freedom. Join the Revolution!

This is a question I have asked myself many times. I asked it because it seems that the Government wants to push a democracy on us, but I do not at all agree with that because it means that 51% rule 49% of the people. That basically means 49% lose their rights. I would NOT want to be part of the 49% in some cases I am sure…

So I looked for information on what the difference really is. Please read:

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.

A Democracy

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

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.