Title: Naomi Wolf Interview - The End of America Source:
You Tube URL Source:[None] Published:Nov 22, 2007 Author:Naomi Wolf Interview Post Date:2007-11-22 21:23:05 by Zipporah Keywords:None Views:281 Comments:23
Listening, in a few minutes so far. I think it's interesting that she keeps using the word "democracy." Also, she doesn't cite Russia in 1919, but instead jumps forward to the 1930s.
#15. To: Zipporah, IndieTX, Christine, lodwick, Noone222, buckeye, tom007, Cynicom, Robin, ALL (#5)
I know.. we live..well did live in a democratic republic not a democracy.. democracy can be a very bad thing..
You know, I've heard many times that the FF didn't set up a democracy but rather a republic.
I think BOTH are wrong (no matter what any of the FF may have SAID they had established).
Clearly, they did NOT set up a situation designed for 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner - a democracy.
Nor did they set up a republic. The definition of a republic is: A 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.
Think CAREFULLY about that definition. It says "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Consider this - we did not have a category of people called "citizens" until it was created by the 14th Amendment! By definition, a REPUBLIC can be (and is) controlled by a relatively small "inner circle" group. Granted the definition SOUNDS good as a way of describing what the FF had set up - but it simply isn't. Republics are COMMUNIST! Think of it - "Union of Soviet Socialist's Republic, or The People's Republic of China... (Although since we now have in place, and practice all 10 "Planks" of Communism in this country, it could be argued that we ARE now a Republic)
What the FF TRULY set up was (and no one ever claims this) a FEDERATION! The definition of a Federation is: An encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities.
A Federation by definition leaves the majority of the power to these smaller and more localized entities! In other words, the majority of power resides at the state and local level. THIS is how it SHOULD be, and THIS is what Ron Paul is really advocating!
I know this seems to be a meaningless "rant", but it's really NOT. If we can't even grasp the concept of WHAT we REALLY ARE, then it's readily apparent that the PTB has fully sold us on a fiction, and we've bought it hook, line and sinker! The way to get to where we need to be (as a nation) is for EVERYONE to WAKE UP (which goes WAY BEYOND the term that so many of us now loosely use) and QUIT living in the FICTION - get into REALITY. It is pure FICTION that they have the authority to MAKE us play this big GAME they've created using their various debaucheries such as licenses and social(ist) (in)security. FREE people don't ask PERMISSION (the legal definition of a license) to do things like get married, travel, or catch a fucking fish for supper!
Everyone talks about a "peaceful solution". A peaceful solution to WHAT? To a GAME who's rules no one likes, THAT'S what! The ONLY peaceful solution is for everyone to QUIT playing the game.
The definition of a republic is: A 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.
Where did you get that definition of "republic"? My understanding of "republic" is any government that isn't presided over by a monarch. As soon as the French National Assembly deposed King Louis XVI, France became a republic, and ceased to be a republic when Napoleon declared himself emperor. As soon as Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, Russia became a republic, and remained such under Communist rule, as part of the USSR, and remains a republic even in today's post-Communist days. As soon as Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated, Germany became a republic, remained one under Hitler (under whom the Constitution of the Weimar Republic remained technically in effect, with the modifications made by the Reichstag Fire Decree and Hitler's Enabling Act,) remained two republics during the Cold War, and remains a republic today. It was not with independence in 1921 that Ireland became a republic, but with the secession from the British Commonwealth and removal of recognition of the British monarch more than two decades later. South Africa became a republic when it seceded from the British Commonwealth, whereas I believe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, still technically with dominion status within the British Commonwealth, do not call themselves republics.
My Webster's dictionary gives as its first definition of "republic" the following: 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usu. a president.
A republic can of course also be a federation. It can also be a democracy. It can, in fact, be all three things at once.
First of all, and I think you've acknowledged this yourself above: we do not have these arguments for trivial reasons. We we debate the definition of our government because it is so important that we communicate clearly about it. The reference to democracy has been a tool of the collectivists, especially in our class rooms. This is not without reason, as they hope increasingly to draw us as a nation to the conclusion that people can dictate rights by opinion, for example the fictitious right to marry, or the right to a standard of living guaranteed by the state. In the EU, one has a right to leisure. Once accomplished, the assumption that the state, not the Creator (nor Nature) is the arbiter of rights. The people may arbitrarily grant or deny them. For example, the right to keep and bear arms. This is the French Enlightenment approach to law, and it was espoused first by Jean Jacques Rousseau. As Andrew Napolitano says, Madison took to this approach, articulating thoughts on the consent of the governed and so forth. Jefferson took the libertarian view, which disputed that the consent of the governed is in any way adequate. It is a prerequisite to liberty, but it is insufficient. Our rights are immutable, unalienable. They do not come from our imaginations.
A democracy, or rule by popular vote, was clearly not what they intended. Nor did they intend to follow the recipe you have quoted as the definition of a "republic." Second, the Founding Fathers were clearly creating a unique form of government never tried before. Finally, it is from our Constitution that we take these definitions, specifically Article IV, section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What the FF TRULY set up was (and no one ever claims this) a FEDERATION! The definition of a Federation is: An encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities.
I like this view.
I know this seems to be a meaningless "rant", but it's really NOT.