McDemocracy : Would You Like Fries With Your Freedom, Sir?

Well said, and well represented, Jean Paul Zodeaux, tyranny of any kind is an abomination against a free society.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The tyranny of democracy is not more benign than the tyranny of a dictatorship. It is not democracy that is the lynch pin of freedom, it is the protection of unalienable rights that are the lynch pin of freedom. The ability to elect political officials has no meaning if the people are subject to the whims of those officials, and have no redress of grievance nor the rule of law to rely upon in terms of asserting their unalienable rights.

This is why people are so afraid of their Government overstepping its legal bounds through "terrorism".

Because it subverts our protected freedoms, legal rights, and address of grievances against tyranny of a federal government.

And why militia's are scapegoated by the Secret Societies to people like the F.B.I. through the M.I.A.C. Report.

America is not a democracy though, we are a Constitutional Republic, we do practice democracy in spirit and law.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Constitutional Republic

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional.

That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

The over usage of the word democracy by our politicians has made it an endemic misnomer to other countries.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Constitutional Republic : Purpose and Scope

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."

Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers.

Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

This is why the threat of, not of the threat of use, but the threat of the potential, of "terrorism" is so powerful.

This is because the word "terrorism" is an abstract idea, and maleable to those in power, it can be adapted.

The use of the word means many things to many people but the definition is vague and untenable.

Through the Hegelian Dialectic, the abstract idea becomes a strength of its own, the negativity of the media scare and terror alerts adds more power, and it is cemented into doctrine through events which happen, whether they are real, imagined, or created through False-Flag Operations, which happens quite a bit more than average citizens believe.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Constitutional Republic : Purpose and Scope

Oligarchies favored the wealthy members of society and featured elected leadership positions.

Democracies favored the poor and middle-class members, of which there are usually greater numbers, and had features such as legislative assemblies open to citizens of voting age.

When taken to heart, so to speak, and used correctly, the polity form of government would be the most ideal government possible, thought Aristotle, because it could take input from community members of all levels and rule fairly in the interests of the whole community and not just the majority.

...

A Bill of Rights exists in the U.S. Constitution which protects certain individual rights.

The individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be voted away by the majority of citizens if they wished to oppress a minority who does not agree with the restrictions on liberty that they wish to impose.

To eliminate these rights would require government officials overcoming constitutional checks as well as a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States in order to amend the Constitution.

The Secret Societies through oligarchial structure with filthy rich families are attepmting to subvert our protected rights, because it is merely in their way of control, power, and domination, making America a dictatorship, without the official title is their motive.

Unfortunately, people speak to picking up guns, blocks of C-4, and a noose instead of realizing they have power, without violence.

We have the right to overthrow tyranny, through voting, by gathering our masses, we can literally organize and put anyone into power, that WE want, if we are willing to do the hard work, spend the time, and push our citizens agendas.

While violence most assuredly work, it is not the first, or even second action we should take, it should be a last resort.

And by taking, or speaking of this action, it gives undue power to organizations like the F.B.I. to enact the M.I.A.C. Report, through Missouri going after militia's, because this report is nothing but a re-hashed example of COINTELPRO and Project Megiddo

We're discussing very similar lines, albeit not in this detail, yet, in this Breaking Political News article from yesterday.

What's the Going Rate for an Election Anyway?

Please, stop by, and add to the discussion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Beware military industrial complexes that declare they are making the world safe for democracy. Take note of the recent constitution written by the Iraqi people. Here is a democracy, and yet a democracy where rights are granted by constitution and thus "stipulated" as opposed to being unalienable and granted by a higher authority than government:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Yes, while making money is a fine entrepeneurial venture, not at the cost of individual freedoms.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
That was, in part, Section One. Now here is a taste of Section Two:

FIRST: Civil and Political Rights

Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status.
Article 15: Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty. Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued by a competent judicial authority.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Take note how these are "civil and political" rights granted by government, and as such subject to the whims of legislatures and judges.

The problem stems though from Iraq being such a fledgling nation out from under control of Saddam Hussein.

And their trust, while well deserved, in America, our own politicians only seek to make them a Puppet State.

The oil and stabilization of the Middle East is the over all goal of our assistance, a mere pittance, for surrendering sovereignty.

Dictator Wanted : The Puppet State, No Experience Necessary, Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll...

You might like the above thread as well where the discussion of the creation of the Puppet State is being discussed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So what that they have a democracy if they are still just subject to governmental whims? Is a democratic tyranny better than the single tyranny of Saddam Hussein? What have they gained, and what favors did the U.S. do for them?

Saddam Hussein was but a puppet dancing for puppet masters though and enacting policy through playacting.

The unfortunate side effects were people dying at the hands of a madman and fear reigning through and through.

Otherwise the Iraqi people might have found the courage to overthrow him themselves instead of wasting American lives.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Indeed, by "making the world safe for democracy" and by placing so much emphasis on "civil rights" The United States has gone from being the freest nation in the world to now having the largest prison population in the world. Democracy has not preserved and protected the inalienable rights of the people within the United States, what good will making the world safe for democracy do?

It is the usage of abstract words, instead of concrete ones, which is a part of this doctrine of madness though.

And it is intentional, words like freedom, terror, democracy they mean many things to many people.

Through the fluidity of the abstract ideal they make average citizens who are too stupid to get it into mindless zombies.

Because people are so inundated with the bread and circuses of American Idol, Survivor, and Big Brother, and their atrocious lack of knowledge of their own nations politics, let alone any other nation for that matter, America quite literally lets these crimes against humanity happen, within our own boundaries, as well as other nations we know nothing about.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In this obsession with democracy, the American people, many who have learned what they know about U.S. politics from a public school system, have learned that they are free because they can elect their "leaders", and that they can protest and freely speak and write their "leaders" to complain about the situation, and are encouraged to vote, even "rock the vote", but once any one of them run afoul of the 600,000 plus acts of legislation on the books, they are then advised to consider taking a plea offer, where they will be convicted of a crime, but receive leniency, instead of taking advantage of the jury of their peers, and this advice is tragically often seen as sound, because the jury of their peers were also educated on American jurisprudence by the same public school system, which is to say, that by and large, the American people remain woefully ignorant of the law, but are rest assured they are free because they live in a democracy.

And therein lies the problem, as the bard tells us, a public education is not taught to our children to make them think, but to recite via rote, something in a text book, which is glaringly obvious to most, containing half-truths, propagandized nonsense, and only half of the story written by the victors and trampling the vanquishes without consideration.

Not one child is taught the laws of our nation, except as a cursory means through education, and even then they have to complete many years of college in order to be fully informed, if there ever is such a thing, because if you learn these laws outside of the bounds of an education towards becoming a lawyer, you are not seen as a responsible citizen but a troublemaker who must be a criminal through using your Freedom of Speech and your unalienable rights.

This is one reason why both the militias and conspiracy theory communities are targets so much so.

Because we know our rights, and we teach others, outside of a classroom, without enriching the Secret Societies.