Larry -
I find no argument to make with anything you just said.

bugfuggled bluehawk

Blue Hawk & S'scout
 

Just want to point out one thing that neither of you has brought up as yet. The gerrymandering, at least here in Texas, is done under the state constitution, which state that the representative districts MUST be re-evaluated and redrawn as determined by and agreed to by BOTH houses of the State Legislature, within 12 months after a state census is taken and verified.
Now, whether you agree with it or not, it is a task take was/is designed to insure balanced representation at the federal level of government, ie; the number of representatives in the house and by insuring that no single political party has an advantage over the other.
Granted, in an ideal world and an ideal democratic republic, we would / should not need this type of political shinanigans, but we do not live in an ideal world nor an ideal democractic republic.
Gerrymandering is not what has brought our schools to the point their now at. It is simply the lack of input and supevision by the parents themselves. AS you both know, we can have all the rules and guidelines one could ever imagine, but if no one enforeces the rules, or obeys the guidelines, then all is for naught. Disipline has be demanded and enforced in a group setting, like our schools, or the bored and disgruntled minority will and does disrupt the teaching efforts, as you both have pointed out.
Closed meetings are also aganist the law, the rules and the guidelines of proper school management, yet because no one is enforcing the laws, rules and guidelines, even at the managerial levels, it happens. The way around these closed meetings, is to get the parents and teachers ACTIVILY involved in the process. Unfortunately, many teachers feel that their voices, their suggestions and ideads, are simply falling on deaf ears, so they stop attending the meetings and, suddenly, we have closed door meetings being conducted and new rules / guidelines being implemented with no input from the teachers, at large.
There is NO electorial college involved at the school level, other than to admit that the President of the USA does have some monicain of sway as to how the federal education board is made up and its basic agenda, at the VERY lowest level. The BoE is run by a Congressionally approved Secratary, who by the very fact that he/she is Congressionally approved, does not answer directly to the President, but rather to theCongressional Oversight Committee, which is made up of political favorites of the majority and minority leaders of both houses. That said, it is completely irrevalent down at the local level schools.
It is the local school leadership that can and should and MUST decide to "fix" the problem that he / she and their predicessors have created. It is also up to us, the parents / grandparents of the students to DEMAND that something be done, or force the school superintendent to resign and replace him / her with someone who can and will make the desired changes.
While we can all agree to disagree on the merits of our democratic republic's federal election process, it is, I believe, completely irrevelent to the core problem in our schools.
Yes, the Federal BoE can withhold funds to a state which does not conform to its guidelines. However, that very state can and should use the rights within the US Constitution to gain governance over its own schools. This can be accomplished in several LEGAL ways, such as,
1) withholding the state tax dollars from the federal government. While this will undoubtedly cause a great deal of publicity and legal ramifications for the state, I believe it will also focus the attention to the problems, especially if several states did this in a coordinated act.
2) Use the court system to force the BOE to relinquish the control of state schools back to the states.
3) Use the state constitutional admendment processes to change the state laws which gave up the right of self control of the schools to the federal government. The US Constitution specifically states that any and all rights and oversight authority, nor expressly given to the federal government shall reside with the individual and several states. That means that if we (and I know I didn't vote for it) the citizens of this nation have not voted for and approved an admendment to the US Constitution, delegating our schools and their management, specifically to the federal governement, then the federal government is in direct and unlawful conflict with the constitution ! A good court challenge would force the government to produce the actual admendment that each state must have voted for / against and the required 2/3 majority which voted FOR it and when.
4) the US Constitution also allows for the recourse of "civil disobedience" when and if the federal governement is found to be usurping their approved authority. This is the right under which the states should withhold their tax dollars.
Okay, this post is getting entirely too long, so I'll get off my little soapbox for now.
Hey, how 'bout them Dodgers ?? :p

democracy or republic...do you know the difference ?


*******The 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual, used by all our men in uniform, quite accurately defined a democracy:

"A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any 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 is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."


A mere 24 years later "The Soldiers Guide", issued in June 1952, contained the following definition:


"Meaning of democracy: Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women carry out the wishes of the people."**********


>>>>>>>>>>>>


Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. {Democracies}. [F.
d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people +
kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by
the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government
in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but
is indirectly exercised through a system of representation
and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of
government. --Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so
called. [U.S.]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


DEFINITION and explanation: What is a Republic?

Look up the word REPUBLIC in most any dictionary. Most likely, you"ll find that a "republic" is a "government of elected representatives".

This is a deliberate deception.

I have an Enclycopaedia Britinacia, 11th edition. This work provides the proper explanation. First it says that the idea that a republic is a government of elected representatives is a "notoriously modern interpretation". The article continues, explaining that historically, a Republic refered to a government in which the soverign held authority granted by the people and ruled according to law.

Note that this concept checks exactly with our own Declaration of Independence which states that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, and that government derives its just powers from the consent of the people.

You now have the key ideas in hand: First, power is derived from the people, and second the government itself operates within and under the control of the law. In other words: In a REPUBLIC the People are the Masters and the government is subordinate.

When the Founding Fathers set our Constitution for us they based their work on this concept. The Constitution is a grant of authority from We the People to form a government. The government thus authorized is a LIMITED government, operating on authority granted from We the People. In every sense it meets the earlier, historical definition of a Republic.

The Constitution is the grant of authority for the government. The Constitution, then, is the Law of the People for the control of the Government.

You will hear many people say that we are a "democracy". Such was NOT the original intention. In a democracy, the will of the majority is law. Anything is allowed, provided that the majority approves. There are no checks and balances, and the rights of the individual are not protected.

Allow me two quotations on the subject:

James Madison, Federalist Paper 10:

"Hence it is that such 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."

U.S. Army Training Manual TM2000-05, 1928

Democracy, n. "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any 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 upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and democracy ... and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had created a republic.

Seek the Truth, and the Truth will make you free!

source :
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Republic.html

Larry -

Exacraly!!!

Which is why it matters so much that there be no closed primaries, no electoral college, no gerrymandering and a few other cute little tricks (e.g. super-majority votes) they've pulled over the past 200+ years...

"Two-party system", right, THAT sure works well...

America is a constitutional Republic, that's what our flag stands for... the flag we carry into battle. It's worth fighting for.

I believe our founders were decent people (most of them) with wisdom and experience. But they were not Avatars sent to earth for the sole purpose of blessing civilizations yet unborn with perfection. They gave us something good to work with, and a lot of the time we're screwing it up.

On the same subject...
 

of mobacracy, as so elegantly explained by Larry: if 7 people are in a room, 6 men and 1 woman, and if 5 of the men vote to rape the woman, you have a perfect example of democracy at work. Take this same example, and apply it to how the liberals are opposing the appointment of federal judges, just because some are not "Hispanic" enough. Mob rule by the Senate Democrats has prevented able, highly qualified, and respected jurists to be approved for the bench.

Larry, not too sure about the states' tax dollars going to the federal treasury - it is money from individuals, companies, and a few others that fund the feds. But true, the 10th Amendment does give the states rights to do those things not specifically reserved for the feds; this is the federal system. But anytime a learned person speaks of the 10th Amendment and States Rights, he's beaten about the head, neck and shoulder region and called a segregationist. And the next time I'm appointed emperor, I'm going to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, the Dept. of Education, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, transfer the UN to Seychelles, make English the official language of the US, drill for oil in Alaska and off the NE coast, and vigorously enforce the immigration laws.

Mortordude
 

Good post, Dude, so help me out here. What I believe we "supposedly" have here in the USA is a "Democratic Republic". We elect our representatives via the majority of the people (At least those that vote !) and these are confirmed by the electorial college. We give the elected representatives the authority to govern, within certain guidelines (ie; the Constitution
), including the authority to make / change / add / delete laws.
Whereas in a true democracy, the people would have to vote for each and every add / change / deletion of laws, from the most mundane to most intricate, with no direct grant of power or authority given to the individual representatives which the people voted into office. I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue in this scenerio.
You are right on target with the comments about our forefathers recognizing the dangers of a true democracy and establishing the USA as a republic. However, our republic is indeed governed by democratically elected representatives, which unfortunately have chosen to set themselves up as the rulers of a democracy. Both the democrats and republicans are guilty of this treasonistic action and mindset. Even the so-called Independent party candidates see themselves as a saving demigod, rather than a party to and for a republic of united states.
It's time the people DEMANDED a return of control of state matters to the states, not the federal government. The individual states gathered together to form this republic for the common good and defense of the nation, not to abolish the rights of the individual and several states to govern their own internal affairs. The states have never approved any admendment to the consttution granting the federal government the specific right(s) to control our schools, churches, or internal commerce. The federal government has, over a period of years, simply and gradually assumed this control, because we, as a collective people, let them. It is time to take these rights back !
Our schools are in such dire straits because the federal government has determinined that IT knows better how to run our schools and what our schools need, than the people of the local communities and states.
The states' economic conditions are in such terrible condition, because the federal government has determionined that it knows best how to "manage" our tax dollars. Even to the extent of telling the states that the the states have to give a huge portion of their state tax dollars into a federal account, which will dole the money back to the state, but ONLY if the state does what the federals government tells it to do. Case in point; the federal governement has stated that it will withhold any and all funds from the Department of Education unless the state mandates that the schools stop teaching evolution as a theory and present it as a scientific fact. Even Darwin opposed this. The federal government is also withholding any and all school funds if a school teaches Biblical creation as fact. It must be presented as a theory only.
Case in point; the federal government withholds any and all monies designated for road construction unless that state abids with federally mandated pollution guidelines. These monies were paid into a federal coffer that has no such strings attached to it, nor powers confurred to the representatives governing that budget, by the people of the states. The tax dollars going into this fund were specifically designated to be used to help establish and build roads in states with smaller populations, which could not fund quality roads otherwise, specifically the standardized federal highway system. However, now the federal government is using this money as a hostage to force compliance with a multitude of unauthorized (illegal) mandates to the states.
The federal governement has also STOLEN billions of our tax dollars to pay for perks and retirement packages for themselves. Case in point; every member of congress (house or senate) does not pay into the national Social Security Plan for retirement. Instead, these theives have voted to give themselves a retirment pay equal to their full salary, for the remainder of their and their spouses' lives!!! To qualify for this generous retirement plan, one only has to be elected to a single term of office in either the House or Senate ! BTW - these same elected officials receive unlimited and free health care while in office and it continues after they retire ! However, these same thieves will not even vote to fund / provide the medical care for our uniformed men and women through the VA program. The FACT that these benefits were and still are "garraunteed in writing" to the armed forces members seems to be conveniently overlooked, time and time again.
I could go on and on for untold ages about the abuses our elected officials have fostered upon us, but I'll stop for now. Suffice it say, we may have begun as a republic, but we have allowed ourselves to become much more of a democratic society. It's time to return to our roots.

Reality check..the bottom part of your post is false.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/pensions.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Listed first is all of the bogus stuff. The truth is at the bottom.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False.

Example:


[Collected on the Internet, 2002]
Hillary for President- NOT!

Just yesterday I saw her on the senate floor speaking against the high salaries of company CEO's.....

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under this fancy "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies.

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? WE DO!

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York.

Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff - and this is all perfectly legal!

When she runs for President, will you vote for her?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Collected on the Internet, 2000]

Something to think about. So that those who don't know, may.

Our Senators and Congressmen don't pay in to Social Security, and, of course, they don't collect from it.

The reason is that they have a special retirement plan that they voted for themselves many years ago. For all practical purposes, it works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die, except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living adjustments.

For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw $7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman.

This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money. While we who pay for it all, draw an average of $1000/month from Social Security.

Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable that people would have extra pay deducted so that they could increase their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that Railroad employees, Postal Workers, and others who aren't in it, would clamor to get in.

That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change were made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us. Then watch how fast they fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe one or some of them along the way, might be able to help.

How many can YOU send it to?

Nothing is worth more than this day




Variations: In May 2001 someone thought to combine the "Congressmen don't pay into Social Security" alerts with an existing screed about the Clintons charging the Secret Service rent by adding the following to the e-mail quoted above:


Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanks to the infinite wisdom of New York State voters, now comes under this Congressional Retirement Plan.
Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million + house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting!! A residency had to be built in order to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent for the use of said residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage and it's all perfectly legal.

You gotta luv it. Is Everybody Happy?????????

A debunking of that addition can be found on our Landlord of Misrule page.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Origins: This
piece has been circulating on the Internet since April 2000. So much of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, it's difficult to know where to begin.


It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. They pay into the fund just as everyone else does.

It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983:

In 1983, P.L. [Public Law] 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the CSRS [Civil Service Retirement System] to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security."

It is not true that Congressmen "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension option they chose when they enrolled) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement.

The figures given as an example for Senator Bradley ($7,900,000 over the course of his and his wife's lifetime, culminating in a top payout of $275,000) are simply outrageous amounts with no basis in reality. There is no conceivable way Senator Bradley could draw anywhere near that amount of money though his pension plan.

It is not true that Congressmen "paid nothing in on any kind of retirement," and that their pension money "comes right out of the General Fund." Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Not bad, but not the highway robbery this piece makes it out to be.
Additional information: Congressional Pensions (C-SPAN)


Last updated: 1 February 2003


The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/pensions.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend

Sargeant Tropo -
Thank you.

Scout -
Here's where I would (possibly) be happy to have you be emperor:
> Abolish Federal Reserve bank, move their duties to Dept. of Treasury.
> Abolish Bureau of Indian Affairs, and timely compel our government to live up to the treaties it has broken with Indians.
> Abolish Dept. of Education, leave their duties and money with the States.
> Make English our official language, and let teachers teach it their own way.
> SAFELY drill and mine for resources wherever necessary , AND HOLD THE FREAKIN' CORPORATIONS, N O T TAXPAYERS, TOTALLY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE'S LIVES!
> Vigorously enforce immigration laws, when those laws make common sense.
> As far as the U.N. is concerned, I regard them as the ONLY true peacemakers we've got, so if folks wouldn't mind, it'd be best to leave 'em be. If they could do their same or better work from the Seychelles, then fine. In that case at least the opposition would (prayerfully) find something else to yap about. It'd sure be a boon to the travel industry, and might make Seychelles the 10th largest member of a "Global Economy".
> Prior to electing you emperor, we would need to see your positions on several other important matters of state, and then know the way in which we could hold you to them.

Regarding your example of "mobocracy" involving the rape of a woman:
a) The men in that room are not voting, in the sense we are discussing here.
They would be barbarians by any standard or under any system, and would have violated the unalterable unvotable laws of God.
b) You say nothing about the possibility that the woman in question might just be able to kick the crap out of all 6 of them! Having two daughters (and a few ex-wives), it is certain that they'd take offense at the assumption they are helpless, unless you intend to mean that males are omnipotent.
c) You often conflate individual private conduct with state responsibilities, as with your example of IBM and closed primaries in one of our other skirmishes.

Gentlemen, I put this case to us all:

Accepting the premise that a constitutional Republic is what we have and what we prefer, it is NOT working well (for anyone) and is in need of systemic change without and not ever wanting to overthrow it.

I contend that if and when the people's vote is unencumbered, then there will be a result with which all will be satisfied.

The failure of our Federalist method to date is proven by disregard of the 10th Amendment (except, of course, when it is to the advantage of the Federal system to mandate that which they cannot themselves perform).

BLUE
 

I hereby accept your tentative nomination as Emperor, and Grand PooBah! What are the other terms to which I must, read that ... may agree?

NOTE: I did not say abolish the UN, just move it to some other more deserving place that can stand the bloated condo rental fees, extra job opportunities for chauffeurs, pimps and hookers, and gawking tourists. I'm quite sure that NYC would gladly give up a few of these. (The savings in US $$ for guarding all these diplomatic toadies would then be transferred to the DVA.)

democracy: one man - one vote, remember? My good friend, Plato and I, had this rather charming converation one day, and he intoned that ".... democracy passes into despotism...." Don't think he ever really advocated this rather stressful form of government, as he, rightfully (oh my, there's THAT word again!) as he didn't trust the masses to make intelligent decisions.

Glad you can support my positions on DOE, BIA and other nation-saving actions needed. Here's another one to run up your flagpole: a national recall and re-issue in another series, of all US currency, to be executed at banks, etc. Amount to be converted NTE $10k, or a note from your momma as to where you got the $$. No note, no exchange. All the US greenbacks in Latin American banks would instantly become worthless, bankrupting the cartels, at least temporarily, and many other blackmarket activities. If this disrupts some overseas economies, phug 'em!

Mornin' Scout -
I always look forward to our dialogues, even though we are both bugfuggled fogeys... we're on the same team.

I never claimed that you said to abolish the UN, and I did say it would be fine with me were it to reside somewhere else. Your description of condos, chauffeurs, pimps, hookers and tourists, however, reminded me of Washington DC more than anything else. Since the UN buildings are falling to pieces here lately, maybe this would be a good time for their headquarters to be razed.

I believe that you and Plato had the right idea about unfettered democracy, which is why the three of us prefer a Republic. Four ideas (please inquire with him as to his view of these):
1) The american Republic is not working very well at this time. It needs some repairs to its electoral process, lest it fail from neglect and abuse.
2) Why, then, do american leaders insist upon "bringing" or "allowing", to sovereign foreign nations, democracy?
3) Since he, and you I assume, do not trust the masses to make intelligent decisions, then by what reasoning do either of you accept the legal authority of any elected american office holder?
4) Why did the Roman Republic fail?

I do accept your other positions on DOE, BIA etc., with the caveats I included. We might begin with the BIA, and those pesky treaties our Republic repeatedly broke.

- A national Recall? Absofreakin'lutely, anytime The Emperor can manage to put that measure into law. The mere threat of it would magically persuade those who steadfastly insist on the rightness of an electoral college to, temporarily, make nicey nicey.

- I am VERY curious about your idea concerning our currency. I confess openly that I do not understand what that would accomplish, or why anyone might want to do it. Please explain, if you care to. Bankrupting cartels, at home and abroad, is an idea which is very appealing.

As your pal Plato said (Republic, VIII, 352d):
"For our discussion is on no trifling matter, but on the right way to conduct our lives."