Advertisements
Home

Power Wedgie for All Who Call U.S. a Democracy!

2 Comments

This is from Joe For America.

 

 

I’m a huge fan of retired radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. I always loved how he fearlessly defended the Constitution and the principles of liberty while unapologetically expressing exactly what was on his mind at any given moment. The “talkmaster”, as he referred to himself, seemed to be an equal opportunity offender and that made his show more edgy and entertaining. I loved iteven on the rare occasions that I was the one he was offending. Boortz still broadcasts a daily rant on his former flagship station, Atlanta’s WSB. So, when his July 3rd rant dealt with the subject of democracy, I thought it was particularly timely considering that it is a term that is constantly thrown around by politicians, pundits and members of the media when referring to the US system of government.

In his rant, Neal Boortz reminds us that “Democracy means majority rule — what the majority wants the majority gets. A constitutional republic operates on the rule of law, not the demands of the mob”. Many would no doubt wonder what is so wrong with a government by majority rule? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” We have a population that is so braindead, (thanks, in part, to the government education system), that many of the average idiots on the street do not even know that Joe Biden is the Vice President. Frankly, that is a fact that I wish I could forget as well, but I digress.

When people are so woefully ignorant, do we really want them in charge of creating policy that affects all of us? Although many consider democracy to be an American ideal, the founding fathers were very clear in their opposition to it, which is why they constructed a system that would protect us from ourselves.

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

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Boortz also poses a hypothetical scenario in which the government seizes all bank accounts over $50,000, and how easy it would be to gain public support for such an act, despite the illegality of it. We have already seen a degree of this example play out. I think we all know this guy:

Immediately after this exchange, Barack Obama’s sycophants sicced all kinds of scrutiny upon this average American Joe who dared to question the anointed one. Not only do we have a right to practice dissent, we have an obligation. Even Hillary Clinton in all of her shrillnesssaid “We are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” That is probably the only thing that she and I agree upon. The problem is, we have a population that is too lazy and stupid to hold the our leaders accountable for their lawlessness, and the ruling class knows it. We had better start exercising dissent or that is going to be the end of the ballgame.

The difference between a democracy and a republic is not just a matter of semantics. This constitutional republic gives us the right to engage in speech that allows us to offend and to be offended, as speech that is innocuous needs no protection. Although, in this current thinskinned, chip-on-shoulder society, it would seem that even the most benign speech is now considered offensive. Imagine what would have happened to Neal Boortz’s career if the majority had the ability to silence speech that they found outrageous. This constitutional republic gives us the right to assemble in places like Murrieta, California, (where the tyranny of this government is currently on full display), to the point that federal riot police may be released on American citizens in the illegal immigration showdown. Imagine what our country would look like as a democracy with millions of illegals allowed to tip the scales. This constitutional republic gives us the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domesticincluding our own government. I hope it does not come to that. These are only a few of the rights that we are guaranteed. Rights are like muscle…use them or lose them. To retain them is going to require much vigilance, but most things that are worth having require effort.

The rule of law is the framework that keeps our freedoms in place. If we start allowing that framework to be torn down beam by beam, even those who have not been paying attention will some day wonder how they ended up buried under the rubble of tyranny. If we allow this great American experiment in liberty to set into the horizon like the sun, the night that follows may be very long and very dark. Are you really prepared for that?


Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/07/power-wedgie-call-u-s-democracy/#ZvGVisrmhvCkWxpf.99

Advertisements

FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador

3 Comments

 

This is from Godfather Politics.

Why isn’t finding these murdering scumbag’s top priority?

Limiting free speech is a Obama administration priority.

This movie is what is causing these goat humpers to riot.

But Obama bragging about killing Osama would not offend anyone.

 

The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance.

Just because you’re able to shut someone up doesn’t mean that you’ve convinced that person that your position is correct.

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.

Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,

“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.

Neal Boortz writes, “Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech.”

It’s possible that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.

I’ve posted the article “Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?” on the Political Outcast site.

 

%d bloggers like this: