The Unsustainable Welfare State

Ronald Reagan once said, “The best social program is a job.” Given the fact that the poverty level in this country has remained virtually UNCHANGED since President Lyndon Johnson declared his “war on poverty” tends to confirm that statement. If you take the motivation away from someone to get a job by giving him enough to live on, where's the incentive to get a job? Ponder these numbers:

In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.

After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates.

The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.

For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased. (Still think an amnesty bill is going to HELP the U.S.?)

The poverty rate in 2011 for children under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.

The number of people in poverty rose for 4 consecutive years.

Think about it – between federal and state welfare programs, which totaled more than $1 TRILLION in 2011, enough to mail every poverty-stricken household a check for $44,000 each year, why would a person receiving that much “assistance” WANT to find a job?

Just to add a little context to the $44,000 – I work 40 hours a week at $13.42/hr. My yearly gross pay comes to a grand total of: $27,913.60. From that, I have to pay my taxes, utility bills, rent, cell phone bills, car insurance, etc., etc., etc. I don't ask for, nor receive, any assistance from anyone. Guess who's just barely above the poverty level.

Now, let's look at what King DingleBarry has proposed to do with welfare spending in this country over the next ten years.

The Senate Budget Committee says welfare spending will nearly double in 10 years.

Using data from the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office, the Budget Committee's Republican staff has added up what's spent on cash aid, health assistance, housing assistance, and social and family services.

All told, welfare spending will rocket from roughly $800 billion in the current fiscal year to about $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2022 — a nearly 80% jump. Overall welfare spending for the decade will be $11 trillion — "roughly one-quarter of cumulative federal spending," the Budget Committee reports.

Think about that last statement for a minute. Let it really sink in. One quarter of ALL federal spending will be on WELFARE. Who's going to pay for it? We're already approaching the financial tipping point. All too soon, there's going to be more people sucking off the government than people paying for this largesse. Add in the rest of federal spending, and you can plainly see this nation will collapse under its own weight long before another decade passes.

How did we get here? In true King DingleBarry fashion, of course. The committee says the unimaginable spending is in part "driven by a series of controversial recruitment methods that include aggressive outreach to those who say they do not need financial assistance."

"Recruitment workers are even instructed on how to 'overcome the word "no"' when individuals resist enrollment," says committee research. "The USDA and Department of Homeland Security also have promotions to increase the number of immigrants on welfare despite legal prohibitions on welfare use among those seeking admittance into the United States."

I'd very much like someone to explain exactly why we're advertising our welfare system in other countries, especially when so many of our own are in such dire need of help.

To paraphrase the great Milton Friedman, man's great achievements have not been the product of a government program, a redistributionary scheme or bustling bureaucracy. They are due to the simple profit motive at work in political systems that let people be fittingly compensated for their innovations and efforts.

No system has lifted man's standard of living as free enterprise has. As Friedman also once said, the masses that suffer the most from grinding poverty are those trapped in societies that depart from free enterprise. "The record of history is absolutely crystal clear," he said. "There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

Watch the positively brilliant Mr. Friedman's remarks here.

Washington's focus should be on removing the restraints it has placed on free enterprise rather than busying itself with building a nation of dependents, as it has for the last eight decades.

A growing welfare state helps no one — aside from politicians who traffic in addiction to government — but a burgeoning economy improves everyone's well being. ~ Hunter

Be sure to “Like” the For Love of Country Facebook page.

The Founders, The Framers, And Religion

I cannot begin to explain to you just how annoying it is to me to hear people claim that the Founding Fathers were secularists or otherwise irreligious, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They say the same about the Framers of the Constitution. Allow me to dispel those inane notions with a sampling of quotes:

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

“[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” - (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

“The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.” - (John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” - (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” - (Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” - (Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. - (Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.)

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.” - (James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” - (Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

“While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.” - (George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

“Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.” - (James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Thomas Jefferson

Author of the Declaration of Independence

Throughout Jefferson’s presidency, he faithfully attended the Capitol church (arriving each week on horseback) and did not even allow bad weather to impede his attendance. He had the Marine Band play at the worship services, and under his tenure Sunday services were also started at the War Department and Treasury Department. Of his faithful participation at the Capitol church, he explained:

“No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion – nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”

Before his presidency and while Governor of Virginia, Jefferson called for a time of prayer and thanksgiving, asking the people to give thanks . . .

“that He hath diffused the glorious light of the Gospel, whereby through the merits of our gracious Redeemer we may become the heirs of His eternal glory.”

His call further asked Virginians to pray that . . .

“He would grant to His church the plentiful effusions of Divine grace and pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers of the Gospel; that He would bless and prosper the means of education and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth.”

I'm sorry, but would a supposedly avowed athiest, with a mind as strong-willed as Jefferson's, even *consider* attending Church services, and in the Capitol building, no less? I would surely think not.

This is but a *small* sample of quotes from the Founders and Framers about religion in general, and its role in the governance of this nation. To call these men secularists and/or irreligious is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Then again, absurdity is just par for the course for a liberal, isn't it? ~ Hunter

Why Capitalism Is Good And Socialism Is Bad

Humanity has only two basic choices when it comes to economic systems; collectivism (socialism, fascism, marxism, and communism) or individualism (laissez-faire capitalism).

Free-market capitalism, not the bastardized cronyism we have now, helped create and maintain the best, richest, most powerful nation this world has ever seen: The United States of America.

That capitalism has generated extraordinary wealth over the last two centuries is a matter of historical record. No other system can match. That being said, why are so few people willing to defend capitalism as the only truly moral economic system?

Professors, journalists, and politicians alike just love to sneer at free-enterprise. They call it base, and callous, saying it dehumanizes, exploits, alienates, and enslaves the people.

The mantra of the “intellectuals” runs akin to this: Socialism is “morally superior,” despite its record of abject failure across the world, because in it everyone is “equal.” No one person has more than any other. Theoretically, anyway. Anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty realizes that in the real world, socialism, like it's bigger, badder, and much uglier cousin named communism don't work like that. There's always a leader, or leaders, whose sole purpose is to ensure that the masses are following the rules while they sit back and enjoy the fruits of other people's labors.

Conversely, according to these same “intellectuals,” capitalism is bankrupt of morals, despite the unqualified success it breeds, and the prodigious wealth it creates, because everyone is NOT equal. Well, their outcomes aren't equal. Consequently, capitalism can only be defended pragmatically; we only “tolerate” it because it works.

I could not disagree more with these so-called “intellectuals” and their psychotic hatred of capitalism. It's the only truly moral and just socio-economic system, for it requires people to deal with one another as equals, as free, moral agents, trading or selling goods and services based on a mutual consent.

Capitalism is predicated upon the free and voluntary exchange between the seller and the buyer. Coercion and fraud, while they do happen, are the enemy of the free-market system, making it the only just system.

Capitalism is both moral and just, as it is the only system that rewards people based upon merit, ability, and achievement. One's rise and fall within capitalism is determined by the degree to which one uses his mind, how hard one works, and yes, even a little bit of luck. What that rise or fall is NOT determined by is one's “accident of birth” or station in life. There's no “class” system in a truly free market. One can be the poorest of the poor, but if you sell a quality product, your fortunes will rise to the degree you work hard to maintain the quality of that product and the continued demand for it.

Are there winners and losers in capitalism? Absolutely. If you're honest, industrious, prudent, frugal, thoughtful, efficient, disciplined, and responsible, chances are you're going to become a winner. Those that become the losers are usually extravagant, impractical, inefficient, lazy, shiftless, imprudent and negligent. Capitalism has a history of rewarding virtue and punishing vice. This punishment/reward system is applicable to the high and the low, from company executives to janitors, from attorneys to warehouse workers.

Socialism, by contrast is nothing more than a form of legalized theft. With socialism comes a ruling class of “intellectuals,” bureaucrats, and social planners, who decide what the people want, or what's “good” for society (sounds like Washington, D.C. If you ask me). The State – and remember, it's run by the aforementioned “ruling class” - then uses it's coercive power to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who produce.

Socialism can be summed up with two words: envy and “self-sacrifice.” Self-sacrifice is in quotes for one, very simple reason – when that sacrifice has, in effect, been mandated by the State, it's not really self-sacrifice, is it?

Envy is the desire to possess wealth like another may have, but that's not all it is. It's also the desire to bring another person's wealth DOWN to the level of one's own. Never mind that this hurts everyone over the long-term. That part doesn't matter in the short-term way of thinking that those who support socialism have.

Two of socialism's greatest proponents, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini, summarized the “self-sacrifice” very nicely: The highest principle of Nazism, Goering said, is that “Common good comes before private good.” Mussolini claimed that Fascism is “a life in which the individual, through sacrifice of his own private interests...realizes that complete spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.” THAT is socialism's “morality.”

Socialism is the socio-economic nightmare which institutionalizes that envy and “self-sacrifice.” It is the system that uses the strength of the State to force the producers to pay the way of the societal parasites. Does that remind you of anything? Does the “Affordable Care Act” ring any bells?

Welfare, regulations, taxes, tariffs, minimum-wage laws are immoral because they use the coercive power of the state to organize human choice and action, they inhibit or deny the freedom to choose how we live our lives, deny our right to live as autonomous moral agents, and deny our essential humanity. All of which, by the way, are diametrically opposite the Founders intentions when they created this nation.

America is no longer a capitalist nation (thanks, FDR. No really – thanks a LOT). We live under what is more properly called a mixed economy – that is, an economic system that permits private property, but only at the discretion of government planners. Think cronyism - a little bit of capitalism and a little bit of socialism.

When the government forcibly exchanges wealth through taxation, when it controls business production and trade through heavy regulations and other rules, it reverses the winners and losers. Under the cronyism the U.S. suffers now, the winners are those who cry the loudest for handouts, while the losers become those who quietly work hard and pay their taxes.

Since the early 1930's, America has been saddled with a mixed economy and the welfare state. As a result, we've created two new classes of citizens. The first is a debased class of dependents whose means of survival is contingent upon the forced expropriation of wealth from working citizens by a professional class of government social planners. The forgotten men and women in all of this are the quiet, hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who mind their own business but are forced to work for the government and their serfs.

Capitalism cannot, and will not, make a return in this nation until there is a moral revolution in this country. When we can rediscover, then teach our young people the virtues of of being free and independent citizens. Then, and ONLY then, will there be true social justice in America. Until that time, we're wandering in the desert without a map, so to speak.

A friend of mine recently posted a meme on Facebook with a saying that I find to be more and more appropriate as I type this post. It said, “Liberals thinks everyone should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think everyone should be equal at the starting line.” That latter part of particular truism, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely what the Founders envisioned when they created this great nation. ~ Hunter

The Night Watchman, Or How Government Gets So Bloated

Tonight, I bring to you a funny little fable, with more than a grain of truth to it. I didn't write it, but I did modify it to bring it up to date, and I found it to be eerily accurate in its depiction of how the government functions. Enjoy.

* * *

NIGHT WATCHMAN

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.

Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."
So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"
So they created ...a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?"
So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?"
So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"
So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back."

So they laid-off the night watchman.

* * *

Let that slowly sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?

It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Yeah... How's that working out for us?

Now it's 2014. Thirty-seven years later, and the budget for this “necessary” department is roughly $25 billion. With somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 federal employees, and nearly 100,000 contract employees, I'd say they've grossly underachieved in their mandate. And that's putting it mildly.

When the Department of Energy was first created, approximately 30% of our oil consumption was from foreign sources. Today, foreign imports of oil account for almost 40%. Sounds like a fail to me.

Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.

And we just had one-sixth of our economy handed over to the same people who can't figure out how to send the mail from one destination to another quickly and efficiently?

To quote a familiar cartoon character - “D'oh!!!” ~ Hunter


Be sure to "Like" my Facebook page here as well.

What Is a "Christian Nation?"

Is America a Christian nation?  To answer that, first you have to ask yourself "What is a 'Christian nation?'"

Is it a nation of Christian laws? Are the majority of its citizens Christian of one stripe or another? Are all the leaders of said nation Christian? Is Christianity the official philosophy/religion/faith? Are other faiths allowed? It isn't anything quite so superficial.

Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained it this way:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.

What makes America a “Christian nation?”

According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) said:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. The United States wouldn't have become what it once was, still should be, and may return to someday, if not for Christianity. Many of our most noble traditions are a direct result of Biblical Christianity, ostensibly still enjoyed today, but slowly and inexorably disappearing, including:

A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;

The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);

Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience; a distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

When King DingleBarry announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” he became the 1^st “president” to make that claim. For someone who claims to be so in touch with the people, the Perpetual Campaigner somehow missed the fact that somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation and/or Christians themselves (see links just below). Essentially, the Vacant Vacationer unilaterally offered a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors.

http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192311)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/Easter-Smaller-Percentage-Americans-Christian.aspx

There are a multitude of quotes from Presidents throughout our history that DIRECTLY refer to America as a Christian nation, from the “father of the country” George Washington, to Richard Nixon and others. Here's a small, but representative, sample of quotes:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.” - John Adams

“[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.” - Teddy Roosevelt

“America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.” - Woodrow Wilson

“American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.” - Herbert Hoover

“This is a Christian Nation.” - Harry Truman (leave it to Truman to be so blunt about it.)

“Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny.” - Richard Nixon

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson. Yes, THAT Thomas Jefferson, the one many now claim to have been rabidly anti-Christian. Read on...

Thomas Jefferson himself helped establish weekly Sunday worship services in the U.S. Capitol building (services which persisted through the 19^th century), as well as being a regular and faithful attendee at said service, determined that not even foul weather would stop his weekly horseback rides to the Capitol church. That the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the constitutional requirement (Art. I, Sec. 7) that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays. This recognition of the Christian Sabbath in the Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America, one court even noting that the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” Not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, but no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity.

Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ”

Even President Jefferson, the supposedly avowed and staunch anti-Christian himself, recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, the Head Jackass' declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.”

Americans must decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether his Royal Lowness is, but historical fact does not change merely because the “president” declares it.

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by King DingleBarry's statement is for citizens - 1) to know the truth of America’s history and - 2) share that truth with others. I challenge ALL who read this to share this TRUTH. ~ Hunter

Stop Saying the United States is a Democracy. It's a REPUBLIC.

I absolutely hate, loathe, despise, detest, abhor, and am otherwise dissatisfied with it when I hear people call the United Stated of America a DEMOCRACY. It has NEVER been, isn't NOW, nor will it EVER be a democracy (not if *I* have anything to say about it, anyway). In fact, the word “democracy” does not appear in any of our founding documents. It amazes me that people don't know the difference.

The quickest way to explain the differences between a Republic and a Democracy is this:

In a Republic, YOU, the individual, maintain your rights regardless of who's in power (ostensibly). That's the whole point of it, really – to ensure that YOU keep YOUR rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” - to PROTECT the minority from the majority.

In a Democracy, your rights only exist at the sufferance of the majority. Ownership means nothing when the majority can vote to take it away from you. It's “mob rule.” The individual means little in a democracy.

In the reality of the political spectrum, a true democracy has more in common with socialism than most people might think. Sure, there's elections – but what happens when those that win said elections are not who you wanted to win? Who protects you from them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with nations with “elections” that essentially meant the end of the political enemies of the winners. 1930's Germany, for example (yes – they were indeed SOCIALIST). Iraq, Cuba, Iran are other examples.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy. They repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a Republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government..." Contrary to popular opinion, the word “democracy” is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

Republic: The Rule of Law; protection of the individual's rights vs. Democracy: Mob rule; the suppression of the individual in favor of the group.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Requiring the approval of both the House and Senate, the Executive branch (President or Governor), the Courts, and individual jurors (through jury nullification), creating law in a Constitutional Republic is a slow, deliberate, and often painstaking process – as it SHOULD be.

Lawmaking in a democracy occurs quickly, requiring only approval from the majority whim, which is usually determined by polling and/or voter referendums. In turn, this allows politicians to blame bad law on the voters. A lynch mob is a fearsome example of a democracy in action.

A democracy will always fail for one, very simple reason; eventually, the non-productive learns that it can elect politicians who make it possible for them to live off the largesse of the productive. Soon, those who do nothing become a majority, forcing the politicians to enact ever-increasing tax and spend policies to meet the growing demands of that majority. Incentive to produce decreases as taxes increase, leading to more and more of the producers dropping out and joining the non-producers. Once the government can no longer fund its legitimate functions and socialist programs, the democracy collapses, and a dictatorship necessarily follows. Does the Roman Empire ring any bells?

United States military training manuals, before World War 2, used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

These manuals were ordered destroyed, without reason or explanation, around the same time President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of gold illegal. In very short order, F.D.R., the most popular president of the 20th century, pillaged nearly half this nation's wealth while convincing the people it was for their own good, as the price of gold was increased from $20 per ounce to $35, not long after the gold was essentially confiscated.

Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference.”

James Madison warned of democracy's dangers with these words: "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 have been violent in their deaths...”

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

It is up to us to know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. It is up to us to teach it to anyone who will listen. It is up to us to disabuse others of the notion that America is anything other than a Republic. And above all, we should be THANKFUL that the Founders were so brilliant in what they created; the United States of America and the greatest nation the world has ever known. ~ Hunter

The Pursuit of Happiness

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is quite possibly the single most famous line from any of our founding documents, but what does it mean to Americans? Why is it phrased this way? What were the intentions of the Founders (most of which, I believe, can be taken from this one phrase) for this, the greatest, richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world?

We hold these truths to be self-evident - There isn't a lot of exposition needed here, except to say that the Founders believed that mankind was born with certain freedoms and liberties, hinted at in the Declaration of Independence, and enumerated more explicitly in the Constitution. We've ALWAYS had these rights, since the dawn of human history: They are inherently ours.

That all men are created equal – This was, no pun intended, an absolutely revolutionary concept when it was written. Even in the fairest and most free governmental systems prior to the American Revolution, there were always class systems. Being born in one class meant you STAYED in that class throughout your lifetime. The only class mobility was downwards, except under the most limited circumstances. Then, from the most brilliant minds ever assembled in one place, at one time, comes a brand new concept: Not only are men created equal, meaning no one is inherently better or higher than anyone else, but anyone, regardless of birth, even regardless of WHERE you were born, had the opportunity to achieve whatever his or her talent, ambition, and hard work could lead them. Never before had that been a possibility. This part of the phrase alone, I believe, is the single biggest reason the United States became the nation all others looked to for inspiration and guidance.

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - Simply put, it is God, Nature, call it what you will, that grants you a multitude of rights and freedoms. We weren't dependent upon government to tell us what we can and cannot do, what liberties we possessed, what freedoms we enjoyed. They are ours from the moment of our conception; and more importantly, they are freedoms that the government cannot curtail, infringe, impinge, interfere with, or strip away from us.

That among these are Life, Liberty – Life is obvious. Liberty, as the Founders saw it, was the freedom of a people, any people, to live life as they chose, without governmental restrictions, until you infringe upon the rights of another.

And the pursuit of Happiness – Here we get to one of the most important parts of the phrase, as well as the most misinterpreted. *Happiness* isn't the right; it's the *pursuit* of said happiness that's the right. As an American citizen, a person is free to PURSUE his or her happiness as they see fit, provided there is no infringement of the rights of another to do the same. Again, due to the class system prevalent in the Founder's world, this was a revolutionary idea. Today, people focus on the word “happiness,” believing that we are guaranteed our HAPPINESS, that our government is obligated to ensure that every person, everywhere is successful - it's *not*; it is up to every individual to create their OWN success and happiness based upon their ability and effort. The Founders specifically created our form of government to stay out of the way of that pursuit. ~ Hunter