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:291 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.
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.
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.
Exactly.
People REALLY need to grasp the legal definition of a license to have a better understanding of RIGHTS.
A license is defined as: PERMISSION granted by the State to do something which would OTHERWISE be illegal, unlawful, a tort, or a trespass.
Rights are something we ALREADY possessed at the time of our birth - which are dictated by the rules of nature (just to be "in line" with those that don't believe in GOD).
The ONLY source which we have at our disposal to knowing what our RIGHTS are (besides what is written in our hearts) is Scripture. WHERE in Scripture is it written that it is illegal to get married? I can't find a record anywhere in there of anyone having to ASK PERMISSION to get married. The same holds true for hunting, fishing, conducting business, carrying a weapon, and traveling - using by the way the most MODERN CONVEYANCE OF THE TIME! We are NOT relegated to having to walk... It is no more than FICTION that some corporate contrivance (which is what a STATE is) has any authority to make such activities ILLEGAL in the first place with which to use as an excuse for "requiring" a license. The REALITY IS that those wishing to pursue a license are wishing to pursue CRIMINAL ACTIVITY! My wanting to go visit my sick grandmother halfway across the country or get married is NOT a criminal activity UNLESS I MAKE IT SO by GIVING the STATE that authority by procuring a LICENSE!
Until we wake up, and LEARN and understand our RIGHTS and then EXERCISE and DEFEND them, we have no claim TO them, and will continue to be TRICKED into giving them up (as Esau did); and can only expect our situation to grow worse. In legal terms - we are the proximate cause of our own injuries.