We DO NOT live in a DEMOCRACY!

We DO NOT live   in a DEMOCRACY! And for very good reasons! The following is intended to make you consider some important questions about things you may have always taken for granted. The primary one being the perception that democracy is synonymous with freedom. It is not! And although many of our institutions include some form of democratic-like participation, We do not live in a democracy! This continued assumption of the people, led by just-as-stupid media, and promoted by the devious politicians, is the major factor that is bringing this country down.  Are you guilty too? republic: "a form of 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." Websters Unabridged Dictionary democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." U.S. Army Training Manual If you still don't understand... Read further: Our Republic was founded upon the principles of Liberty (the right to do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others) and limited government, not democracy. In fact, seldom if ever will one see reference to democracy in the founding documents of our nation, at least in a positive context. Peculiar, don't you think if we are suppose to live in a democracy as our politicians tell us? Consider this: We had Liberty coins,   not democracy coins. We have the Statue of Liberty,   not the Statue of democracy. We pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, not the democracy for which it stands. Patrick Henry said: "Give me Liberty or give me death!", not "Give me democracy or give me death". Please take the time and consider the following selected excerpts copied without permission from Chapter 3 of The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson: "It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling minority.""Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decision-making power of government, but in truth there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions for the entirety." As proof of these contentions, one has only to read the 1928 United States Army Training Manual, which defined democracy as: "A government of the masses.  Authority is 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 it be based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequence.  Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." A democracy, according to this definition,  is actually controlled by a demagogue, defined as: "A speaker who seeks to make capital of social discontent and gain political influence." (Gee, does this sound like our politicians,   and our media?   Hmmm....)   Do we have our reason, yet?   The 1928 definition of a democracy was later changed by those who write Army manuals, however.   This was all changed in 1952. BUT WHY? This is now the definition of a democracy in the Soldier's Guide: "Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how the government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy and Air Force. These people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people." The United States is NOT a democracy, and this is not the definition of A democracy.   Why do we allow these lies to corrupt our country?   Who decided in 1952 that our Constitutional Republic was SUDDENLY now a "democracy" ???? HUH? So...   If democracies are in truth oligarchies, where the minority rules by calculated influence, is there a form of government that protects both minority and majority rights? There is, and it is called a Republic, which is defined simply:   Rule by law:   a Republic   In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority.   Still confused?   Perhaps the easiest method of illustrating the difference between an oligarchy, ademocracy and a republic would be to discuss the basic plot of the classic grade B western movie. In this plot, one that the moviegoer has probably seen a hundred times, the brutal villain rides into town and guns down the unobtrusive town merchant by provoking him into a gunfight. The sheriff hears the gunshot and enters the scene. He asks the assembled crowd what happened, and they relate the story. The sheriff then takes the villain into custody and removes him to the city jail. Back at the scene of the shooting, usually in a tavern, an individual stands up on a table (this individual by definition is a demagogue) and exhorts the crowd to take the law into its own hands and lynch the villain. This group decides that this is the course of action that they should take (notice that the group now becomes a democracy where the majority rules) and down the street they (now called a mob) go with pitch forks, torches, and axe handles. They reach the jail and demand that the villain be released to their custody. (yeah, right!) The mob has spoken by majority vote: the villain must hang. (The L.A.Riots was a mob action too!) Did you like THAT kind of democracy? The sheriff appears before the democracy and explains that the villain has the right to a trial by jury. The demagogue counters by explaining that the majority has spoken: the villain must hang. (Majority "rules"  =  (Democracy)  -  Right?) The sheriff explains that his function is to protect the rights of the individual, be he innocent or guilty, until that individual has the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. The sheriff continues by explaining that the will of the majority cannot deny the individual that right. The demagogue continues to exhort the democracy to lynch the villain, (Sounds like our polititians...) But, if the sheriff is persuasive and convinces the Democratic Mob that he exists to protect their rights as well, the scene should end as the people leave, convinced of the merits of the arguments of the sheriff. The Republican form of government has triumphed over the democratic form of mob action! In summary, the sheriff represents the Republic, the demagogue the control of thedemocracy, and the mob the democracy. The Republic (Law) recognizes that man has certain inalienable rights and that government is created to protect those rights, even from acts of the majority. (Democratic mob) Notice that the Republic must be persuasive in front of democracy and that theRepublic will only continue to exist as long as the people recognize the importance and validity of the concept. Should the people wish to overthrow the Republic and the sheriff, they certainly have the power (but not the right) to do so. The persuasive nature of the Republic's arguments MUST convince the democraticmob that a government based upon Law is the preferable form of government.  (Tough job!) It is easy to see how a democracy can turn into anarchy when unscrupulous individuals wish to manipulate it. The popular beliefs of the majority can be turned into a position by committing some injustice against an individual or group of individuals. This then becomes the excuse for the unscrupulous to grab total power, all in an effort to "remedy the situation." (Watts Riots anyone?) Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing: "We are now forming a Republican form of government.   Real Libertyis not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." (Hey!   That's where we are headed, people!) Others were led to comment on the perils of democratic forms of government. One was James Madison who wrote: "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!" Another was John Adams who wrote: "Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in ademocracy) as against the king in a monarchy." George Washington, in his farewell address to the American people as he was leaving the presidency, spoke about the amending of the Constitution: "If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitutional designates.  But, let there by no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." It was about that same time that a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship." So now you may ask:  If we live in a Republic founded upon the principles of Libertyand limited government,   why does the media and so many of our politicians keep trying to shove this concept of democracydown our throats, as if freedom naturally followed?   (Could it be that they have a hidden agenda?   Hint...Hint...) Perhaps they don't like the limits on the powers that have been granted them by our state and federal constitutions. Maybe because majority rule sounds legitimate and moral on its face, they wish to use our own ignorance to enslave us with the consent of the masses; and to extract from us every last penny that we have. Or maybe they have other self serving motivations. Whatever the case may be, only the knowledge of our heritage will enable us to anticipate such schemes and act accordingly for the correct direction of our Republic. And there is our answer! "Only the knowledge of our heritage will enable us to anticipate such schemes and act accordingly for the correct direction of ourRepublic." So, Do your homework, before you ever say Democracy again! . . .   Please?