Posted by Tina
“New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections,” by Byron York:
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
Ah heck…why not go for a record?
I have come to accept that we are entering a new age of politics where the thin veil of “working for the people” has been cast aside.
It may not have totally started with Obama administration, but they are perfecting it with a fine honed edge.
Here is video link taking place in Texas right now.
http://eaglerising.com/4784/video-proof-democrats-break-law-win-elections/
It points out that the “Acorn mentality” is still vibrant and given the green light by the Liberal Dem’s even thought the report shows it violates Texas laws.
Win at all cost and stay in office for the parties sake seems to be replacing the Constitution or State laws everywhere.
Why am I not surprised? With everything else this administration has done and gotten away with this is just another one to add to their long list of accomplishments that violated our Constitution.
The WH has been able to control most of the media, this is just to reign in those who have refused to comply and will pull their license if they don’t.
They’re saying it’s just an innocent study with no hidden agenda. Right. If their wasn’t an agenda there would be no need for a study. It is very clear in the Constitution to keep hands off the press.
Hopefully, the media will refuse to participate and Congress will pull the funds.
I’m beginning to believe the “transformation” Obama said he would begin is now completed. America is now ranked 57th for freedom of the press amongst all nations. We dropped over 13 spots just last year thanks to this administration.
From World press freedom index 2014:
“Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example, far from it. Freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.
This has been the case in the United States (46th), which fell 13 places, one of the most significant declines, amid increased efforts to track down whistleblowers and the sources of leaks. The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.
US journalists were stunned by the Department of Justice’s seizure of Associated Press phone records without warning in order to identify the source of a CIA leak. It served as a reminder of the urgent need for a “shield law” to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources at the federal level. The revival of the legislative process is little consolation for James Risen of The New York Times, who is subject to a court order to testify against a former CIA employee accused of leaking classified information. And less still for Barrett Brown, a young freelance journalist facing 105 years in prison in connection with the posting of information that hackers obtained from Statfor, a private intelligence company with close ties to the federal government.”
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php#
The intimidation factor alone is chilling, even before any action that might take place.
That the FCC would even think such a thing means education has failed completely!
“The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.”
Here here.
Chris, without question America must have it’s secrets in order to maintain national security. The great balancing act is how much? When goverenment starts to hide information about failures, situational embarassments, public criticisms, etc., we must take a hard look at that and be sure we protect our right to know.
Education about freedom and America’s founding is a must but so too must morals and virtues be passed from generation to generation so that future leaders and those who serve under them can be trusted to uphold the Constitution and execute laws as intended:
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin:
We’ve come a long way from the founding, and the state of our citizenry as well as our leadership reflect this fall from grace.
We live in an age when we can’t trust government officials or the media…it all comes down to a nation that has pooh poohed morality. People who still believe in virtues are laughed at and derided. Every generation has lowered the bar. How much lower will we sink before a generation tires of the general degradation and wises up?
Many journalists today are being trained to favor a leftist point of view rather than serve as neutral observers interested in the facts. This nation cannot survive as a free republic if that continues over many more generations. We don’t need the FCC enforcing that leftist view in newsrooms either.
Those who value freedom and morality are not afraid of alternative opinion. Those who seek to control also seek to shut down opposing opinion.
Tina: “Many journalists today are being trained to favor a leftist point of view” and so are our students through Common Core.
I have real concerns with DC being in control of the curriculum over local school boards, educators and state’s department of education.
Major concerns also with curriculum being developed by publishing companies and a computer program developer. Just following the money should have every parent concerned as to the real motive and ultimate beneficiaries which may not be their children.
Also, the control over the content and accuracy of information will be out of local educators and parents.
Common Core Curriculum Now Has Critics on the Left:
“The Obama administration encouraged states to adopt the Common Core as part of the Race to the Top grant competition, but it is not a federal mandate. Arne Duncan, the federal education secretary, declined to comment on what was happening in New York. But in November, Mr. Duncan attributed some of the unrest nationally to “white suburban moms” who discovered that “all of a sudden, their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought.” (He quickly apologized.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0
The Battle Against Common Core Standards:
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/rousseau/the-battle-against-common-core-standards
Common Core Science and Social Studies Standards – Look Out:
http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/common-core-science-and-social-studies-standards-look-out/
Common Core + Math = Risky Experiment:
http://ohioansagainstcommoncore.com/2013/08/common-core-math-risky-experiment/
Goodness … a meeting of the minds … sort of.
The Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs is, indeed, a bad idea. We can’t have the government policing the “marketplace of ideas” … such as it is.
And I shudder to think what such apparatchiks would get up to under a Republican administration.
It’s up to the citizens to do the policing, and if they won’t (are you hearing me, Peggy?), then the country’s going under … and deserves to do so.
While I STRENUOUSLY disapprove of Fox News, existing as it does solely to promote the political agenda of Roger Ailes, we’ve got people like Gabriel Sherman out there doing some heavy lifting. It will have to do.
Peggy, I clicked your link warning us to “look out” for the Common Core Science and Social Studies standards. It is idiotic and insane. The writer says:
“Article 4, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state in the country a republican form of government, and protection from both foreign and domestic intrusion on that form of government. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founding Fathers were very opposed to Democracies because they led to mob rule.”
This is uninformed garbage. A republic is a type of a democracy. That is a fact. The U.S. is commonly referred to as a democracy and has been for ages; that is also a fact. Even Saint Ronnie called our country a democracy, for crying out loud:
“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” — President Ronald Reagan, Normandy, June 6, 1984
http://peterlevine.ws/?p=12096
This sudden desire by some on the far right to split hairs over the difference between “republic” and “democracy” is silly and reveals the arrogant ignorance that now pervades the movement. We’re talking about people who think they are historical and constitutional experts yet don’t even know that the U.S. has long been referred to as a democracy by both the left and right. That’s what happens when you get your history from people like Glenn Beck and David Barton.
Your source continues:
“Now in all fairness, these CCSSS DO actually mention the word republic a couple times in the document”
Then what the hell is this loon bitching about?
“(unlike Utah’s current K-12 history standards), however, the way they portray it is even more alarming. (markup by me)
INTRODUCTION
IN THE COLLEGE, CAREER, AND CIVIC LIFE (C3) FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL STUDIES STATE STANDARDS, THE CALL FOR STUDENTS TO BECOME MORE PREPARED FOR THE CHALLENGES OF COLLEGE AND CAREER IS UNITED WITH A THIRD CRITICAL ELEMENT: PREPARATION FOR CIVIC LIFE. ADVOCATES OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION CROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, BUT THEY ARE BOUND BY A COMMON BELIEF THAT OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC WILL NOT SUSTAIN UNLESS STUDENTS ARE AWARE OF THEIR CHANGING CULTURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS; KNOW THE PAST; READ, WRITE, AND THINK DEEPLY; AND ACT IN WAYS THAT PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES ON THESE OBJECTIVES. THE GOAL OF KNOWLEDGEABLE, THINKING, AND ACTIVE CITIZENS,HOWEVER, IS UNIVERSAL.
So in other words, in order for our “Democratic” (not Constitutional) Republic to survive, we have to embrace a changing culture (slouching toward Gomorrah), changing physical environments (global climate change?), and promote the common good (socialism). Sidebar: Some people will have differing opinions, but the intelligent people have achieved universal agreement on these things.”
This is psychotic, Peggy. To assume that talk of “change” and the “common good” are just socialist code is McCarthy-esque paranoia.
You’ve achieved your goal of proving that we need better education in this country, as well as a populace that isn’t so easily swayed by unreliable media sources. Just not in the way you meant to.
Libby: “And I shudder to think what such apparatchiks would get up to under a Republican administration.”
We know exactly what a Republican administration would do.
“Fox News, existing as it does solely to promote the political agenda of Roger Ailes”
Before Fox News there was only the left wing agenda. fox at least offers an alternative to the propaganda stations and channels that dominated for decades.
“we’ve got people like Gabriel Sherman out there doing some heavy lifting”
It sounds like you are saying this guy is a real live journalist of the old school rather than the leftist, agenda driven elitist he apparently is.
No wonder you like him.
“This sudden desire by some on the far right to split hairs over the difference between “republic” and “democracy” is silly and reveals the arrogant ignorance that now pervades the movement.”
As a means of distinguishing between the radical left agenda to create a socialist government and call it democracy the use of the word is quite appropriate and explicit. The ignorance resides with those who cannot, or will not, see the distinction.
Ronald Reagan made that speech at Normandy. He was well aware that this nation was formed as a republic and the generation he was born to knew well how important the fight to keep it one…many of them died or were wounded on the beeches of Normandy to ensure the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and by our republican form of government.
“Psychotic,” really Chris? People are psychotic now because they don’t agree with you?
Well, let’s see just what our Founders Fathers had to say on the subject and then you can decide if you’re the one who needs to go back to school to learn what you obviously missed before.
If you’re going to teach kids who may grow up to be our future journalist you should want them to know the truth and not a bunch of lies like you learned.
“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”
Written by John F. McManus
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review. Yet in more recent years, Franklin has occassionally been misquoted as having said, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” The NRA’s Charleton Heston quoted Franklin this way, for example, in a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace that was aired on December 20, 1998.
This misquote is a serious one, since the difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply “the public thing(s),” or more simply “the law(s).” “Democracy,” on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule.” Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.
The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) “Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch. In fact, they recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. They had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former. In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.
But don’t take our word for it! Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.
• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”
• John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.'”
• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”
In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”
20th Century Changes
These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos,” he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. “I have long been convinced,” he said, “that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
By the 20th century, however, the falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States became increasingly widespread. This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for democracy” — and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.
Continued..
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
Chris: “You’ve achieved your goal of proving that we need better education in this country, as well as a populace that isn’t so easily swayed by unreliable media sources. Just not in the way you meant to.”
You sure did.
Libby: “It’s up to the citizens to do the policing, and if they won’t (are you hearing me, Peggy?), then the country’s going under … and deserves to do so.”
Libby, how about you and Chris, “Go Green” and car pool to the same classes you both obviously need.
A democracy turns into tyranny, which is where we are headed with YOUR man in the Oval Office.
…”democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.”
Here! Here!
Today, these two quotes deserve repeating with highlighting:
“a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” – Fisher Ames
“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” – Lord Acton
Very nicely done!
Tina: “Ronald Reagan made that speech at Normandy. He was well aware that this nation was formed as a republic and the generation he was born to knew well how important the fight to keep it one…many of them died or were wounded on the beeches of Normandy to ensure the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and by our republican form of government.”
And yet, as you just read with your own eyes, he called our form of government a “democracy” and called it “the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”
The argument in Peggy’s link and her subsequent selective quotations is that it’s ignorant to call the U.S. a democracy, and that doing so is part of a nefarious socialist plot. So which was Reagan? Was he ignorant to call the U.S. a democracy? Or was he part of the conspiracy?
I repeat: a republic is a TYPE of a democracy. The Founding Fathers were referring to a PURE democracy in their denunciations, which no one is advocating for.
(I’ll point out that conservatives seem to LOVE advocating a purer form of democracy when it comes to ballot initiatives on issues like gay marriage, where they think they’ll win; yet they denounce such efforts as “mob rule” when it gets them results they don’t like.)
Here is Sarah Freaking Palin referring to the U.S. as a democracy:
“I fear for our democracy.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-im-considering-running-for-president/
Is Palin a progressive now?
Peggy: ““Psychotic,” really Chris? People are psychotic now because they don’t agree with you?”
No. You should know by now that I do not call people psychotic for disagreeing with me. I call people psychotic for acting like paranoid McCarthyites. Believing that the Common Core is part of some progressive plot to socialize America because they use the word “democracy,” a word that has been used by Democratic and Republican presidents (and even far-right fake presidential candidates) for decades is psychotic. It is not a rational disagreement.
“Well, let’s see just what our Founders Fathers had to say on the subject and then you can decide if you’re the one who needs to go back to school to learn what you obviously missed before.
If you’re going to teach kids who may grow up to be our future journalist you should want them to know the truth and not a bunch of lies like you learned.”
Peggy, you obviously never learned that a republic is a type of a democracy. I won’t tell you to “go back to school,” because you don’t have to do that in order to obtain such easily available information. All it takes is a freaking Google search to prove that this is true.
Arguing that “We’re a republic, not a democracy” is akin to arguing that “Peggy is not a conservative, she’s a far-right Tea Partier.” One can be both a conservative and a far-right Tea Partier; in fact, the latter actually REQUIRES the former. While the latter is more precise, the former is still a perfectly accurate description.
So it is with the republic/democracy distinction. All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. They are not mutually exclusive; a republic is a type of democracy.
By the way, Peggy, the author of that New American piece is the president of the John Birch Society, the group that William F. Buckley basically kicked out of the mainstream Republican party for their radical, racist and conspiracy-driven ideas.
Yeah, I totally expect him to quote the Founders accurately and in context.
Aaaand a little more Googling shows that the New American itself is the official magazine of the John Birch Society.
Fantastic.
But it’s not like the Republican party has become radicalized, or anything.
Radicalized? For posting quotes from the founding of the nation?
Interesting that the man in the White House and the Party you continue to support are dripping with radicalization…and that doesn’t bother you a bit!
Obama was raised and mentored by extreme radicals. He was promoted by extreme radicals and that doesn’t bother you a bit!
When the founding fathers are considered “radical” the country is in real danger.
Chris you need to get educated.
Chris, Bull-pucky! It doesn’t matter who wrote the article as long as they quoted our Founders correctly. The facts are the facts as long as they reflect the truth.
You don’t like the writer, so here’s another one.
Republic vs. Democracy
United States Constitution
Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” [Not a democracy.]
Pledge of Allegiance – “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands …”
As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied; “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” (Webster’s dictionary definition: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.)
Democracy: Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as “mobocracy”). Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.
Republic: Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation … a republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.
Professor Montesquieu, a French professor, author and legal philosopher who wrote the highly influential book, The Spirit Of The Laws, (which was read and studied intently in America) was the source of our division of power in our government. Baron Charles Montesquieu was the second most frequently quoted source, next to the Holy Bible, out of all the references used by our Founding Fathers.He was the source of our division of power in government; (i.e.. legislative, administrative, judicial) claiming Isaiah 33:22 as the source; the Lord is our King, the Lord is our Judge and the Lord is our Lawgiver. Montesquieu identified the rule of law as “natural law” which is based on the Holy Bible. He identified the rule of law as “principles that do not change”. Natural Law is the law God gave His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
In 1748, Montesquieu wrote; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351222/posts
Misspoken words by a handful of individuals does not change the fact our Founders intentionally set up a Republic form of government. Individuals beginning with Woodrow Wilson and FDR are the ones who began using Democracy convincing you and others we’re now a “blend” of both.
Reagan, Palin etc. misspoke, so what. The fact is the Founders gave us a Republic. Period!
They are proving themselves correct with the transition we’ve been under since the 1930s into a blend of Democracy and Republic, which is why we have a tyrant in chief now who by fiat is exerting his powers in to the legislative branch.
Since you’re so smart, tell me what happens next when the people realize they’ve lost their freedom and liberties? Does the Ukraine look like what lies ahead for this country and possibly you? Those people are dying over there just like the men who fought for our freedom here.
Our Founders understood this could happen, therefore, Ben Franklin’s remark, “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.”
Believe me or not Chris, I don’t care. It just goes to show the different education I receive during my youth vs. what you did.
I’m not a expert on Common Core, but my gut tells me based on what I’ve heard and read including what you were taught it does NOT reflect the truth and is a tool to complete the transformation from a republic to a democracy. They will believe as you do that what you were taught is the gospel truth and us “old-timers” don’t know what we’re talking about.
You want the truth look it up yourself by going to the original documents and anything written prior to Woodrow Wilson. Anything since then has been bastardized.
Tina: “Radicalized? For posting quotes from the founding of the nation?…When the founding fathers are considered “radical” the country is in real danger.”
That’s not even close to what I said. Try reading my comment again.
Do you not know the history of the John Birch Society and William F. Buckley’s crusade to distance the Republican party from their brand of crazy?
If not, you’re the one who needs to get educated.
Buckley had the courage and the intelligence to speak out against the party’s fringe elements. If only the current Republican party had the same qualities.
“Reagan, Palin etc. misspoke, so what.”
No, they didn’t misspeak. They were completely accurate to use the term democracy.
A quick, simple question, Peggy:
A republic is a type of a democracy.
True or false?
Chris: “”That’s not even close to what I said.”
You said this:
“But it’s not like the Republican party has become radicalized, or anything.”
That was part of your response to what Peggy posted. I am responding to the absurdity of using the word radical for the Republican Party/Peggy when the founders are being quoted.
The party platform of the Republican Party today is a hell of a lot closer to the founding principles and ideals than is the Democrat Party, which for the past seventy years has been more and more radically progressive…more closely aligned with a Marxist model. I would call that extremely radical!
I do know the history; You can find some of Buckley’s own comments here.
The real controversy was over one man. The real scandal is that the JBS was a big anti-communist group so the radical left communists in America did what they always do…they set out to destroy the very name.
Bobby Kennedy was a big anti-communist politician for heavens sake! They had no problem with him and his big brother going after the communists…they only objected to right leaning groups that were anti-communist. The Kennedy’s were revered as a monarchy…referred to the period as Camelot, for heavens sake! Hypocrisy abounded!
This alone should give you some idea of how radical the current leaders of the Democrat Party are. Your party has moved from fighting communists in America to promoting them!
The “fringe elements” of the Democrat Party are now leading the nation and the party you support!
You are simply too naive, too lacking in life experience to even realize it. You are just ignorant enough to think your ideals are main stream American or middle of the road, politically.
Try reading Peggy’s comment without that nasty habit of playing gotcha…try thinking for a change.
You do this time and again, Chris, You change the subject in order to avoid talking about what is important. You attack as a means of avoiding the uncomfortable truth about the ideals that formed our republican government. They are all that really matter.
“Bobby Kennedy was a big anti-communist politician for heavens sake! They had no problem with him and his big brother going after the communists…they only objected to right leaning groups that were anti-communist.”
Yes, that’s because the Kennedy’s weren’t a bunch of frothing at the mouth McCarthyites, and the John Birch Society was.
This is not hard.
Chris: “A quick, simple question, Peggy: A republic is a type of a democracy. True or false?”
False.
A republic is ruled by laws enacted by elected representatives. That’s why our founders set up the Electoral College and the three separate and equal branches. Even if the majority votes for a candidate it takes the EC’s vote for final approval.
A democracy is ruled by the majority, even a simple majority, without any checks and balances.
The checks and balances is what keeps the mob rule from taking over and tyrants from becoming dictators. That’s why what Obama is doing is so troubling.
I really wish you would understand this and see how dangerous it is.
Chris: “that’s because the Kennedy’s weren’t a bunch of frothing at the mouth McCarthyites…”
Please note, you failed to do your homework this time and my source is PBS:
Like I said, Chris, you are naive and lacking in experience. You have also been taught (programmed?) in a school system dominated by radical (some just unconscious) progressives.
And that is why, this is hard for you.
Peggy: “False.”
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Republic
Chris: “Wrong.”
Wrong? Did you even read the Wikipedia link which says:
“In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to ..”
“The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights;”
“Republic[edit]
Main article: Republicanism
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[85] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[86]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.”
Come on Chris, pull your head out of wherever you stuck it. I’ve been saying our Founders set up a Republic style of government to follow. I even admitted Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the first to start bastardizing it and changing it. So, if you want to now argue what today we have a blend of a Democratic and Republic system you’ll get no argument from me. But, let’s be clear and compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Question, did our Founders establish a Republic style of government? True or False?
Hey Chris, answer my question.
You never responded to my post proving the lies the media told about Sarah Palin not being guilty of anything except not controlling Todd for threatening the brother/brother-in-law state trooper.
True.
It is also true that a republic is a type of democracy.
Therefore, we are both a republic and a democracy.
Democracy describes the system of participation.
Republican is the form of government our founders establsihed.
We are a republic. We have three branches of government; representative government configured to avoid the elements of mob rule…direct vote of the people.
Lefties hate to admit it because republicans might benefit from the population being aware of the distinction.
Peggy thank you for being tenacious with those who strain at the speck!