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:242 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.
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.
That's where I got my definition. How much different is a "monarch" from a "president" when the "president" has the power to issue "executive orders"?
If your point is that the difference between a monarchy and a republic is only technical, I quite agree.
In fact, one can be much freer in a constitutional monarchy like Britain or various other states of Europe today than in a republic like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia or China.