"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified.
While there may be a small question as to the author, I wish that I had said it. I have known it to be true since I learned the definition of a Democracy many years ago. The truth is self evident. For a discussion on the differences between a Republic and a Democracy click here.
There was a "man on the street" interview done by a San Diego TV station during the Gore-Bush campaign. The interviewer asked a young man who he was going to vote for. The man said that he was still considering their respective positions. He intended to vote for the one who he thought would give him the most. (He never heard President Kennedy's speech?)
In 1913 we made it so US Senators would be elected by popular vote. Prior to that time the Senators from each state were put into office by the State governments. Each had their own procedure to do this. So that effectively each US Senator served at the pleasure of the state government which he represented. Prior to 1913 no federal laws were passed that violated states rights. Now, other than civics students, no one knows what states rights are! Also we wouldn't have the mentally challenged US Senator like Barbara Boxer.
In 1913 the states ratified the US Constitution to allow the income tax (if ratification really happened). We in effect gave the government free reign to tax and spend as they please. The big lie was that the government would only tax 2% long enough to pay off the Spanish American War debt. Is it paid off yet???
Most of the legislators have no idea that the purpose of our government is to protect the rights of citizens. Many start their first day in office trying to figure out how they can buy their constituents' votes with public money. They have socialistic agendas that they immediately start working to achieve without a thought whether they conform to the Constitution. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and they do not even know that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) does not convey even one right to the People. They do not know nor do they care that most of the laws passed by the federal government are in violation of the Constitution.
Most important, they do not know that the only purpose of the US Constitution is to form a government to protect the rights of the people. That's it!! When you sit down to write a bill or study a bill offered for your vote, your first question should always be: how will this affect the rights of the people???
This needs repeating:
The only purpose of the US Constitution is to form a government to protect the rights of the people.
The big push now is for universal medical care. The reasons given are that the people just cannot afford it. Especially the elderly. If 40% of the peoples wages were not taxed away, they would have enough money. The people are far better at handling their own money than the government is.
The point is that for whatever reason, valid or not, the tax and spend crowd are going to continue their pressure and continue to tax and spend. And those looking for what government can do for them will keep that crowd in office. They do not seem to notice that the government has no money. The government just steals it from those who do have it.
There are two major political parties. One is evil the other is stupid.
One party constantly complains that the rich are getting a free ride on taxes and should pay more. This party continually sets up a class envy and wants to raise taxes on the rich. Of course the rich are a very small minority, so this party has been getting away with it for decades. A small minority doesn't have much clout at the polls. This party keeps lying about how the rich have to pay their "fair share." This is why the framers of our Constitution did not allow the federal government to levy income taxonly the state governments could levy income taxes. At one time (1952) this party was taxing every person with an income over $200,000 at a rate of 92%.
This is the party that constantly warns the elderly to watch out for the other party because the other party wants to reduce their benefits. Then this party (Clinton administration, 1992) levied an income tax on Social Security benefits.
This party wants to abolish individual ownership of arms ostensibly for safety reasons. Every intelligent person knows that there is greater safety when the people are armed. However the liars have been telling the lies so loud and so often that the people are starting to believe them.
This party brags that they passed tough laws to keep assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials out of our neighborhoods. They never explain why all such laws have never had any positive effect on crime!!!
This party claims they are for women's rights, but denies them the ability to protect themselves from rape. One out of every three women will be raped during their lifetime!! If they were allowed to be armed, this would be reduced dramatically, even if only one or two percent of the women chose to be armed. Now this would be true freedom of choice.
This party wants to collect extra income taxes for a supplement to everyone's retirement when they get old (Social Security), but spends the money for anything it wants. Not surprisingly, congress exempts itself from such extra taxes. And note that this party does not want the people to own or have a say in their retirement package because they claim the people aren't smart enough.
This party supports racial discrimination. First it supported slavery. Then when the slaves were emancipated this party took two actions. One, it passed every "Jim Crow" law in the South, and two, the KKK became its enforcement arm.
Today this party changed the name of racial discrimination so it would not sound so bad. They call it affirmative action. So the party is still touting racial discrimination. No one could support affirmative action unless they truly believe that blacks have less ability or intelligence than the rest of society.
This party is for abortion, but rush to correct anyone calling it that. They call it choice! (The little guy with the most to lose doesn't get any choice.)
However this is the compassionate party, it wants to spare the life of murderers.
This party is for homosexual rights at the expense of everyone else's rights. They promote the teaching of alternate life styles and masturbation to grammar school children whether the parents agree or not. They promote the teaching of the safety of condom use when they are not safe. This subject should be taught in the home.
All this is going on at the very time that the education system cannot teach the three R's. But this party is opposed to a voucher system because parents are not smart enough to make the necessary choices. (However teeny-boppers who get pregnant are smart enough to decide on abortions without their parents knowledge.)
This is the party that wants to change the traditional meaning of marriage. They are not content with allowing a domestic contract between two persons that would give them the same financial and medical considerations given married couples.
This is the party that attacks the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, because the Scouts do not want atheist or homosexual members or mentors.
This is the party that does not oppose illegal immigration because it wants their votes. The more low-information voters the better.
This is the party that opposes the line item veto. The best argument for the line item veto is pork. Pork is a cute name that is given to the practice of each senator and representative to spend federal money on local projects in his district. This is done to insure the resulting good will for the projects will translate into votes. The common denominator for all pork is that it is all unconstitutional. It runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is very unfortunate because the United States does not have revenue problems; it has spending problems.
This is the party that promotes minimum wage laws. The unions pay for the legislators to back minimum wages so the unions will have better bargaining positions when the next contract negotiations are due. If a minimum wage law is good, then why not pass a minimum wage that gets the worker out of poverty? Why don't they pass a law that gives the workers a wage above the poverty line? They will tell you that they cannot do that because too many would lose their jobs altogether. So they raise the minimum wage just a little to satisfy the unions and a smaller number of low wage earners will lose their jobs, and they probably don't vote anyway!
This is the party that accepts millions of dollars from unions knowing full well that half that money is stolen from the union members who do not support the unions political choice. Federal case law forbids use of union member's funds without permission. However the only way a union member can find out how much his union spends on buying legislative influence is through a law suit.
This is the party that is for rent control which violates property rights.
This party threatens a filibuster if the president nominates conservative people who will follow the US Constitution as close as possible to what the Founders would have wanted.
This brings up many questions: If this political party does not want the justices to follow as close as possible the US Constitution, then what rules do they want the justices to follow? Where are these rules written? Is it OK to legislate from the bench? Should each justice rule the way he personally thinks it should be? Should each justice study the polls to get the pulse of the people? Should the justices conform to the party platform of the party in office? Should they consult with Senator Barbara Boxer?
We have already lost our property rights, our states rights, and freedom of speech 60 days prior to an election. All this decreed by justices favored by this party.
This party's litmus test is whether a justice nominee believes that one's right to privacy is stronger than another's right to live. If this is the nominee's belief, then he is acceptable. No one even debates whether the Founders held such beliefs. How could all the states be so wrong on such an important issue? All fifty state governments are opposed to choice.
The US Senate uses the filibuster to allow the minority members to force the majority to either drop a bill unacceptable to them or to field a super majority vote. There is no Constitutional requirement that the US Senate vote on every bill. However, the US Constitution does require the Senate's advice and consent on nominations! The senate must vote yea or nay on every nomination. A filibuster on a nomination prevents the US Senate from meeting their Constitutional duties because it would prevent the required vote or require a super majority. This is in violation of the US Constitution. Senate rules do not supercede the US Constitution.
If the US Senate wants a super majority required for judicial nominations, they should start the procedures to change the Constitution.
This is the party that supports the notion that the Constitution should be a "living instrument" reflecting current circumstances. Since the only purpose of the US Constitution is to form a government to protect our rights, which rights do we not need any more?
This is the party that supports the Supreme court justices who on June 6, 2005 struck down the California law for medical marijuana saying it violated the federal governments right to regulate marijuana that might find its way to interstate sales. Federal law is more important than a sovereign state??
When the California law permitting use of medical marijuana came before the US Supreme Court the majority ruled the law unconstitutional (under the commerce clause). The so called Conservative, radical judges on the bench, like Clarence Thomas, voted with the minority. These radicals believe that the State of California has the right to legislate without federal interference.
Then near the end of June 2005, these same justices took away all citizens property rights. A local government wanted to invoke "eminent domain" against a property owner so they could take the property and give it to another private owner so the property could produce higher taxes for the local government. The definition of "eminent domain" is the right of the state to take property for public use. The liberal Supreme Court Judges, the majority, ruled in favor of the local government. Now we have a new definition! And every citizen lost his property rights! The Conservative, radical judges believe that property rights are probably the most important rights that the Founders were trying to protect when they wrote the Constitution. They were in the minority on this decision.
In short this is the party that wants to increase taxes, spend and spend and manage everyone's most important affairs, and take their rights away. They want a Supreme court that will make laws from the bench, increase federal power, diminish sovereignty of the states, and reduce individual rights. They are Socialists, but like racial discrimination (affirmative action) and abortion (freedom of choice), they do not want themselves called Socialists. Some of them even shy away from being called liberal, preferring instead to be called moderate.
This political party wants the president to announce a finish date for the hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's funny. They didn't ask for a finish date during the Korean Conflict. They are not calling for the troops to come home from Germany. That has been over sixty years now. A finish date would give the terrorists aid and comfort and be of great help to prevail in their cause. It would be terribly demoralizing for our troops. Our allies would not know where they stood and would be hesitant to ever trust us again. Many families would think that their loved ones died in vain. The Iraq people would be completely demoralized. Iraq would be taken over by the thugs who were the most ruthless (terrorists). How could anyone want a finish date knowing it would cause irreparable harm to the liberation of these countries. Could it be possible that some in this party hate the president so much that they would want the effort to fail???
Can anyone show me the "Robinhood clause" in the US Constitution. (Click here and see if you can find it.) There must be one there. Otherwise how can this guy be advertising on TV that he has the listings where even rich people can get these federal programs totaling over $360,000,000,000 (That's BILLION, every year.) to pay your rent, for you to write a book, for you to pay off your debts, for you to pay off your bills, etc. Most of this goes to corporations who are some of the special interest groups that rape the citizens. Why is sugar sold in the US at twice the price anywhere else in the world? Why are we still paying farmers not to grow products. Why are the majority of the farm subsidies paid to huge aggro-conglomerates, but implied that the subsidies are paid to family farms? The inheritance tax insures that the family farms are sold to aggro-conglomerates. (The inheritance tax is unconstitutional too.)
The other party says they are for smaller government, less taxes, and more individual freedom. Sounds good.
This other party has reduced taxes temporarily. It compromises on most important issues, and worse of all it is so anxious to be reelected, it is advocating some of the same give away schemes to buy voters. Doing this erodes the vast conservative support, and this other party is doomed to failure. Honorable people do not compromise on their core beliefs! Even if they are reelected, they are sliding down the same slippery slope.
You can decide which political party is evil and which is stupid.