In Desperate Need Of A Second American Revolution

[zengrifter]

Desperate Need Of A Second American Revolution

Commentary
Gary Jacobucci
RENSE / 1-25-8

Editor.

During election cycles, I've often found myself being criticized for not participating in democracy. There is something intrinsically disturbing about the whole process that stuck me as a mockery of what was once a republic.

It may have been for the same reasons that led Westbrook Pegler to write in the New York Journal in 1951: "Did I say 'republic?' By God, yes, I said 'republic!' Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used often by ignorant persons, but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

Or Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler to write on the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess 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."

MORE- http://rense.com/general80/revo.htm

[zengrifter]

So what exactly is the difference between a republic and a democracy? zg

[Canceler]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

So what exactly is the difference between a republic and a democracy? zg

I always thought that in a pure democracy the citizens would vote directly on things, while a republic would make use of elected representatives. But now my dictionary says a democracy might make use of elected representatives... So, who knows?

[aslan]

Originally Posted by Canceler

I always thought that in a pure democracy the citizens would vote directly on things, while a republic would make use of elected representatives. But now my dictionary says a democracy might make use of elected representatives... So, who knows?

I believe a republic is a representative democracy, as you say. Semantics!

[aslan]

Originally Posted by aslan

I believe a republic is a representative democracy, as you say. Semantics!

Wrong! Read this from Wikipedia:

In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election.

Also:

For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters (see next section) can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries.

And finally:

An important reason why people could choose their society to be organized as a republic is the prospect of staying free of state religion: in this approach living under a monarch is seen as more easily inducing a uniform religion. All great monarchies had their state religion...

...United States: the Founding Fathers, seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would not support any established religion, as Massachusetts and Connecticut did.

Also, interesting to note:

Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for communist republics like the (former) Soviet Republics, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China.

And if you thought you finally had it down pat, read this:

Some countries or states prefer or preferred to organise themselves as a republic, precisely because it allows them to inscribe a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution: Islamic republics generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the Jewish state of Israel, in the Protestant republic that originated in the Netherlands during the Renaissance[17], and in the Catholic Irish Republic, among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no broad-thinking monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the Millet system had done in the Ottoman Empire[18]) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the Henry VIII/Edward VI/Mary I/Elizabeth I succession of monarchs in England). Such approach of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation played an important role for example in the overthrow of the regime of the Shah in Iran, to be replaced by a republic with influential ayatollahs (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "supreme leader".

Now doesn't that take the cake?!

[person1125]

Aren't we becoming more of an Oligarchy??


Oligarchy

Dictionary Def

oligarchy.net

[shadroch]

While you are at,explain the difference between a state( NY,NJ,ect) and a Commonwealth( Mass,Virginia,Puerto Rico,ect)

[Guynoire]

You're all wrong America is a FEDERALISM. Read the constitution; states have individual rights and governments as well.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by shadroch

While you are at,explain the difference between a state( NY,NJ,ect) and a Commonwealth( Mass,Virginia,Puerto Rico,ect)

I'm not going to look it up, but what I know is that the form of the law under a state is different than that which under a commonwealth. There are four commonwealth "states," if you'll allow me the liberty of calling them states, and Massachusetts and Virginia are two of them. I forget the other two, but its easy to look up. The reason I know about this is that some of the Kennedys attended the University of Virginia for their law studies. The reason they picked UVA was because it taught commonwealth law and that knowledge was transferrable to Massachusetts, another commonwealth state and their home state. I used to know the reason, something to do with the chartering of the original state or something, but I'm sure it's easy to look up on the net.

[zengrifter]

This is why we'll get Hillary or McCain - we can't intelligently discuss the differences
between republic and democracy nor states and commonwealths. zg