16 votes

Fundamental Question: What is a Republic and why does it matter?

Since I first recited The Pledge of Allegiance, I have known that the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. Until recently I never really thought why it matters so much.

The constant bickering between Americans over which party is best and the mainstream media fascination with and enhancement of this pointless debate have become all too common. Should differing viewpoints be respected and heard? Absolutely! Should these debates influence how elected representatives vote? Lately it has, but in our Republic the answer is supposed to be, “No!”. Elected officials at the National Level are required by their oath of office to set aside personal views, lobbyist pressure, and/or party platforms to vote according to our rule of law, The U.S. Constitution!

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, a woman inquired as to the type of government the Founders had created. Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Now, to fully understand Franklin's statement, one must understand what a Republic is.
b (1) : 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
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

The last part is key: "...AND GOVERNING ACCORDING TO THE LAW"

Why is that so important? Though having its flaws our law, the U.S. Constitution, is special due to its focus on limiting the power of the National Government and because of the first ten amendments added to it called the Bill of Rights. Since a Republic is only as strong as the law that governs it, many of the Founders refused to ratify the Constitution unless it was guaranteed that the Bill of Rights would be added. The Bill of Rights would guarantee the rights of each individual person being respected(not fully legally realized unfortunately until after the Civil War).

So how does this discussion of a Republic apply to today? All elected National politicians take an oath to follow and defend the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution limits the power of the National Government by specifically listing what each branch can do. Since Congress is given the power to create laws, their specific powers are listed in Article 1, Section 8. Amendment 10 gives all other powers to the States and the People. Since tyranny does not change over time, the idea of the government serving the people rather than the people answering to the government will always apply. The consistency of human nature refutes judicial interpretations about the Elastic and Commerce Clauses which allowed and is still allowing the National Government to overstep the originally established guidelines of Federalism. The U.S. Constitution needs to be used by our elected representatives to determine the validity of any bill and to determine whether it would violate the U.S. Constitution by creating a situation where the government or other people benefit at the expense of even one person.

We are slowly becoming more a Democracy which, as many of our Founding Fathers believed, rewards mob rule. Congressional votes on bills, even ones with patriotic names, sensationalized after major tragedies and buoyed by reactionary public support, are to be based on comparing the bills to the rule of law, not public opinion or party pressure. When voting on The Patriot Act, which clearly violates the fourth amendment, occurred in October of 2001 without many in Congress even reading copies of the bill, our elected servants failed our Republic and individual liberties still suffer as a result.

It seems as though most elected representatives at the National level, who should know better, are more interested in figuring out who is superior in the court of public opinion and pleasing lobbyists to help re-election bids than in "keeping our Republic". It is time for ALL Americans to say enough is enough, stop bickering over which failed party is better, and demand that their elected officials actually read and understand the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. If politicians choose not to honor their oath of office, then vote in someone who will, regardless of party affiliation. The future of our Republic depends on citizens demanding that those oaths be honored.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I cannot teach you about Electricity,

if you keep getting AC and DC power confused....

bump!

This is the root of ALL our troubles.....

if people do not know the difference, how could they decide?

your answer is 100% correct. this is fundamental.

both bad.

1) marginal differences in what hoops need to be jumped through before the aggressions of the state (technically just other people calling themselves "the state") is percieved as legitimate. in a democracy, the potential tyrant needs only to point to a popular vote. In a republic, tyranny is somewhat more difficult to pull off, but obviously still possible... if a potential tyrant needs a majority of senators or congresscritters in lieu of a majority of general population before he can rob you, it is harder for him, but obviously not impossible

2) There are marginal differences, with a republic being marginally more difficult to institute oppression (as mentioned above), however the tradeoff is that such oppression is cloaked in more of a veil of legitimacy. If youre robbed by some asshole who says that "the majority" authorizxed him to, you might see through this insanity very quickly "Dude... wtf does the majority's say have to do with your right to rob me".

HOWEVER, if youre robbed by this same asshole who now points to a magical parchment signed by people you never met, supported by some men in robes and some other men in a big room, you may balk at protesting your oppression for fear of angering the magic powers of the old parchment or something silly. "Oh, so that magical parchment is why im not raped on a daily basis, why gravity exists, why theres air in the universe, etc... and youre suuuuure your right to rob me is authorized by it somehow? I dont wanna anger it. Ok, here's my wallet"

In a Democracy, majority

In a Democracy, majority rule, If we decided to kill all redheads by majority vote we could.
In a Republic every citizen, Even Redheads have rights..

Comment for later read

Title looks interesting - this is one of the key distinctions that has been programed out of the average citizen over the past 100 years.

So vital.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

Here's what I say on the subject to folks outside this forum:

Democracy:
Everyone has the Right to vote.

Republic:
Everyone has Rights that cannot be voted on.

Nice

I like that. Thanks!

Well

The phrase "we are a republic, not a democracy" that I see so often on Youtube and hear even some of my friend say is somewhat true.

But I digress, the phrase is also grossly inaccurate.

To most people and me, saying that USA is not a democracy simply doesn't make any sense. USA IS a democratic country because it has elections, and voting procedures. But You can point out that it is a specific type of democracy, Constitutional Republic.

China can be considered a democracy because there are voting there, but their constitution isn't really followed at all.

So saying we are NOT a democracy doesn't make any sense, but that The united states isn't no SIMPLY a democracy makes much more sense.

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

I would characterize the USA

as a Democratic Republic, but honestly, the main point that I wanted to make was that the bickering over which lame party is best needs to stop in this country. We have fallen so far away from the original intent of the founding fathers that most people never even consider that the Constitution still makes sense today. Not only does it make sense, but if we returned to following its premise of people first and states rights over national controlling departments, many of our budgetary problems and civil liberty invasions would be taken care of.

I intended this to be a more practical than philosophical post, but, as always, the insights are appreciated. I can always count on being challenged here and that is why I love this site.

Answer:

A republic is a form of government in which the people have sovereignty or the final authority - the final say in all matters. The people are sovereign in a republic.

Also, a republic is one that is limited to a narrow territory; throughout the ages republics have existed, the vast majority of which were small in geographic territory.

Theorists may classify the US as a "large republic." It's large, but not a republic. In fact it is an empire at home and abroad.

The problem is not that Americans do not read the Constitution. The problem is that the moneyed interests and their lawyer friends have read the Constitution and have come to the conclusion that their delegated power is not strictly limited nor clearly defined.

The problem is that we are arguing in favor of a document which was the product of an illegitimate conception, a gross power-grab that took place 200 years ago by the moneyed and landed interests of the day.

The constitution was a compact, not a suicide pact. Secession is the only sincere alternative for change.

Parroting lies is now common.

I don't know why you guys don't get it, but it is as plain as day to me.

Here is some reading material - if you have any trouble getting it:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginiatime...

It is a lot of reading, and that is the tip of the iceberg. I stopped in this Topic to see if there was anything new.

You guys don't get it.

Here is another source:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

There is a good explanation in that book as to the design of a voluntary government, and you can call it a Republic, or you can call it a Confederation.

The idea is to maintain a Free Market of Governments. There are many States, or Cantons, where each competitive government is a limited government, or Constitutional Government, and those Legal Fictions compete with each other for the market share (as if free market) of tax payers, or investors, or citizens, or any word you want to call free people, so long as the connection between government and people is still free.

The idea is to FORCE each State to compete for market share and then each State is FORCED to be higher in quality and lower in cost compared to the competition.

It is as if the free states decide to form an imperfect Union, a voluntary Union, not a Union like the the one here in the current Abomination called U.S.A., run by organized crime, both the organized crime with badges, and the organized crime without badges, not that kind of Union.

Not the kind of Union where the Union thugs arrive at the door and demand protection money (protection from those same collectors of money), not that kind of Union.

The idea, that you guys appear not to get, as in you don't "get it", is that the imperfect, or voluntary Union, of Sovereign and Separate States, agree, at the State level, to form this Union, or not form it, as each State may, or each State may not, join the Union, or not join the Union, and each State my pay the Union dues and remain in it, or each State may not pay the Union dues, and be free to go, so long as one State does not attack another State, and that was one of the selling points of forming an imperfect, voluntary, Union, which is mutual defensive FORCE.

So, not getting it as you do, the point is that the Federated or Confederated part of the government kept, on the books, a rule where people within the Union can move from one State to anther State without being accosted, robbed, or otherwise having their Liberty taken away by any person in any State, with or without a badge, so long as the person in question was not accused of some crime whereby the accused was protected by a due process of law that was due everyone, such as the concept of being presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by 12 people in a Trial by Jury, where all 12 people had to agree that the person who was presumed to be innocent was found guilty by all 12 Jurors, and all 12 Jurors could try the case, all 12 Jurors could try the law itself, and all 12 Jurors decided on the punishment, in each case, and all 12 Jurors were picked by random lot.

Someone, for example, accused of defending their Liberties by forming a military force that was rebelling against an unfair, unjust, and criminal tax, for example, in one State, having lost that revolution in that State, could, run to another State, a State that didn't have such despotic rules, criminal enslavement made legal, were not guilty of any "Federal" crime, so the guys hired by the States to run the Federal government were not given permission to "return runaway slaves" back to their "owners" in that way.

If the idea is to make government a free market commodity, then the Federal employees are not given the legal power to enforce Slavery in one State, upon all the slaves in all the States.

If you don't get it, then you don't, and your words so far indicate that you don't get it.

Here is another source:

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

The Force at work in those days was that Free Market Force and in those days the people hired to run Massachusetts went by the way of all criminals, and those governors run amok started to do exactly what the previous Despots did before the Patriots ran those criminals out of the country.

So Daniel Shays and a bunch of ex-Revolutionary War Veterans continued the Revolution in Massachusetts, and you all aught to know that their duty to do so is all spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which is another good source of information.

So...that last battle of the Revolution was suppressed by the criminals in the Massachusetts government, and Daniel Shays, and others, fled to Vermont.

What could a guy hired to run the Federal Government do?

Nothing.

When the criminals running Massachusetts demanded their slaves back, to make examples of their slaves, the good guys running the Vermont government ignored this case of whatever "runaway slave law" was said to exist by anyone.

That is called voting with your feet.

That is called voting and not having your vote count, also known as the ballot box.

That is called voting with your rifle when the criminals have taken over the State government, also known as the cartridge box.

That is called voting with your feet when the Slavers offer only one choice: Obey.

Without question.

It worked, and it was done that way on purpose, as to improve upon the competitive (free market) examples then working in Holland and Switzerland.

We The People even get our Trial by Jury taken from Magna Carte Days in England.

Here is a source for that:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

So, you guys don't get it, or maybe your words just don't show how you do get it.

I don't know.

But the concept of a Voluntary, Free Market, Government did work, can work again, but it can't work if the criminals take over at the Federal Level because they make the government "consolidated" in that way, on purpose from the start.

You don't get it, sure, but you could get it if you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

You don't even have to get the book at Amazon, there are plenty of free market book sellers, so why not have many State Governments on the Shelf instead of just having one monopoly government power?

You don't get it. Sure, I get that part.

Taken from the first link:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion?"

It may be a good idea to stop wallowing in ignorance.

I don't know.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to crush competition)

Joe

That was a pretty long reply

That kept stressing that the people on this thread "don't get it".

And that you (apparently) do. You seem pretty (annoyed?) impatient that you are one of the only people that understands it, and nobody else seems to be catching on.

Even after everything we've ever read and studied.

Honestly I found your reply confusing.

Can you boil that down in a way that clearly shows that we're still missing something that's important.

Because I never found the concept of a limited, decentralized government bound by the rule of law to be all that complicated or confusing.

What is the point?

"And that you (apparently) do. You seem pretty (annoyed?) impatient that you are one of the only people that understands it, and nobody else seems to be catching on."

I'm just passing on measurable observations, so what you read into things, or fail to read into things are your responsibilities accountable to you. If you continue to move the topic from the topic to me personally, fabricating someone who is "annoyed", or "impatient" or whatever you can dream up, then your contribute is exactly that, fabrications of diversionary personal perspectives aimed at me.

I employed a "you don't get it" phrase to stress the point of that having already been done in this thread, before you showed up.

"Because I never found the concept of a limited, decentralized government bound by the rule of law to be all that complicated or confusing."

A State, such as New Jersey...

I cut myself off, so as to get me out of the picture entirely, and the quote I will offer to any reader, including you, has nothing to do with me (other than I share the accurately measurable observation) so you can take your personal attacks up with that author if that is your axe to grind here on this forum.

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

Chapter 6
Lessons for Today

Duel Sovereignty Essential

Page 140

Quote:

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs [footnote 12]. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right."

Your words:

"Because I never found the concept of a limited, decentralized government bound by the rule of law to be all that complicated or confusing."

Competitive words:

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs [footnote 12]."

"With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right."

The question is, then, do you know the difference between a National (Consolidated) government and a competitive free market confederated voluntary union type government?

I could ask just about anyone, I don't have to ask you.

Joe

If you phrased the question:

"Do you agree with the except from William Watkins "Reclaiming the American Revolution" Chapter 6, pg 140 -- quote in isolation, as stands.

The answer is "Yes. 100%. Absolutely. That was the original intent of the Constitution, as a contract agreed to and signed by the state delegations at the time"

Are you agreeing with this author? I take it?

No, I didn't read the entire thread to get the context of who / why you were responding to the way you did. My bad.

imo yes: if they don't understand this point, they most likely do not "get' what the Constitutional Republic actually is and was meant to be. Agreed.

ps. Nice tip on the book. I am putting this on my wishlist to pick up.

Recommendation: Brion T. McClanahan "The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution"

He does a great job of clearing up original intent using supporting historical documentation from the time period (including but well beyond the Federalist Papers)

You take things?

"Are you agreeing with this author? I take it?"

I did not give anything for you to take. The Articles of Confederation were competitively better than the Holland and Swiss Model Voluntary Governments; then Shays's Rebellion occurred, and then George Washington was called out of retirement to lead the charge for a National Consolidated Government backed by the Central Bankers of the time, such as the now infamous Alexander Hamilton.

If you don't know that, then you aught not take things from me that I do not give up without question.

Here is a list:

Competitive Voluntary Government Experiments:
1.
Icelandic Commonwealth
2.
Britain under Magna Carte
3.
Holland (at least during the time period of the American Revolution)
4.
Switzerland (at least during the time period: American Revolution)
5.
America working under The Articles of Confederation (American Revolution 1776 through 1788)

Here is another list:
Despotic Empires
1.
The Royal British Crown
2.
The French Monarchy
3.
Russian Monarchy
4.
German Monarchy
5.
Nazi Germany (Fascist like our government is now)
6.
Bolshevik Russia (Financed by the dollar denominated Central Bankers as was Nazi Germany)
7.
U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) A.K.A. The Dollar Hegemony, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations, The Pentagon, Wall Street, Washington, The Military Industrial Complex, The Federal Reserve System of Legal Fraud, The Internal Revenue Service System of Legal Extortion, The National Debt, the International Debt, The War on Terror, the War on Drugs, Spreading Democracy, Quantitative Easing, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Extraordinary Rendition, or anything financed via Federal Reserve Notes.

Hamilton was a self confessed supporter of Monarchy.

Check it out yourself (leave me out):

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

Recommendation: Brion T. McClanahan "The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution"

That title does not mention anything about the diametric opposition between roughly half of the so called "Founding Fathers" with the other half, where half were lying, cheating, criminals, making campaign promises that were broken once their lies managed to get them elected into a new government that gave them absolute power.

I could read that book, but what would be the point of me recognizing further lies printed in books?

The Federalist Papers were written by the Nationalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, with the idea of fomenting a false rebellion against the actual Federation or Confederation, so naturally the Nationalists called themselves Federalists. The False Front Federalists had opposition, not limited to the most vocal opposition, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, many Founding Fathers (genuine not counterfeit) opposed the Nationalists and what do you think the Nationalists called the people who opposed Nationalism (which was Nationalism hid behind a counterfeit "Federalism" Front)?

Check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dissent...

I can grab quotes and so can you, to sell, or give, to be taken, or abandoned, any reference; but this is already a long reply in a world of sound bites.

"He does a great job of clearing up original intent using supporting historical documentation from the time period (including but well beyond the Federalist Papers)"

Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper Lies, one of which had to do with Taxation, a campaign promise to be broken, which Hamilton broke when GIVEN the office of Secretary of Treasury. This is all well documented stuff, so I can be left out of the entire mess - please.

Joe

Well, if you really want to be "left out of it" so bad

Why post here then.

What?

What do you think I meant, and do you really think your version of what I meant is the version I actually meant?

I meant: The concept of improvement involves the concept of competition where a viewpoint is compared competitively with another viewpoint.

Let the better viewpoint prevail.

It does not matter who has the better viewpoint, what matters is that the better viewpoint is known.

It does not matter, to me, which is what I meant, that I express the better viewpoint, or you, or Henry, or Sam, or George, so long as the better viewpoint is known, compared, and is better, not worse.

If that is not understood, then it is not understood, by you, not me, because I understand what I mean.

If I really want to be "left out of it", then what do you think is "it"?

What do you think is it, exactly, whereby you think I want "so bad" to be left out if it?

I want, if you ask me, to be detached, personally, from the viewpoint which is, or is not, better, so as not to divert attention away from the better viewpoint, as that attention, interest, focus, brain power, is misdirected onto me personally, and no longer an attention, interest, focus, or brain power that is zeroing in on the viewpoint.

The rules, as far as I understand them, are such that "personal" focus, such as unwanted, unwelcome, involuntary, "personal attacks" are against the rules, and that is what I mean by leave me out of "it", meaning leave me out of any focus of attention on ME, and try, if you can, to focus attention on the viewpoint being competitively offered for discussion (not argument).

If that is not clear, then there are ways to make that viewpoint clear, as well as there are ways to divert focus away from that viewpoint (which may not be clear) onto me personally.

Go figure.

Joe

I don't get it...

or do I?

You just need a few more details and a tad more confidence in the presentation of your ideas.

What is a Republic...before any other argument.

A Republic is:

A.
Voluntary Association among free people in Liberty.

B.
Not A

Joe

These people had a republic

G. Edward Griffin/Katanga: The Untold Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBDAsezArz4
but seems that there is this other supposed Republic that forsook it.

"I think there is a serious error in failing to know that the current government is counterfeit, or crime made legal, and therefore the concept of defense against crime is falsely viewed as being morally wrong, as morality and legality are confused by that bait and switch routine." —Joe

Do you know about Katanga, Joe?

I am working on my Joe's Quotes counterpoint/points. I am having a tough time getting, buckled down to started :)

Familiar Story

Take away all the false names and the Katanga story is the same one used by the same type of criminals.

Obey, without question.

Any competitor, anyone questioning, will be forced to obey, without question.

What happened when ex-Revolutionary War soldiers, and other people on the frontier in America did not obey, without question, the tyrannical tax on whiskey in 1794, right here in America?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

A new National Conscripted Army of aggression for profit was sent in to the Sovereign State of Pennsylvania to crush the competitors, same tune, same as Katanga, no different in principle, just more bodies.

What was the Civil War?

Same false front, same routine, more bodies, and obedience without question:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

How is it that people can be led to believe that slavery by the name of U.S.A./Federal Reserve/IRS is any different than slavery by USSR/Central Bank Fraud Legal Crime/Involuntary Tax Extortion Legal Crime?

Many don't; hence the resort to deception, threats of violence, and massive legal torture and legal serial murder.

No hurry on the book, and I mean it, if you drop the whole thing that is OK too. I can work on it as it is with all the help you offer so far.

Thanks

Joe

I don't know

"What was the Civil War?"

For some reason it doesn't seem as bad as what was done to those people in Katanga.

I suppose that is because I have thought we were the "good" guys. We does not mean me and you, it means those who I thought I was a part of. It is that "we" as in those who I was confused as to not being criminals.

Did you watch that link? Did you see what the criminals here in our borders did to that country?

I think your questions as to what is a Republic is a very important question to answer. I have another link I want to send you. It is about a Republic in Spain. OK?

I want to do my ever so interesting work that is waiting on me. I just know when I start what I will be starting lol :)

...

I saw most of the link on Katanga

I want to see the link on the Republic of Spain.

Whenever I get any information on what American productive capacity finances abroad, including the past, current, and future examples of Empire Building it occurs to me to remind myself of what happened in Waco.

"Coming to a Church near you."

I am also reminded of what was written in Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Prize Lecture on the subject of Empire (Legal Crime).

Basically he questioned why people care for each other when living in the same house, and why people fail to care when the distance is greater. From those words I try to be more sympathetic and I try to bring the torture victims, figuratively, inside the house, on the kitchen table, screaming, and what can I say to them?

Sorry?

I didn't know?

My hard earned productive capacity is financing your torturous demise?

You didn't obey without question, so next time think twice?

How about learning a thing or two about why these things happen and then stop doing those things?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to enforce the Empire at home)

It is never too late (until it is).

Joe

"they" and "we" are not "us"

Katanga was a free market economy where whites and blacks lived side by side. The UN with the help of the US subverted the country because it was the only part of the Congo that had not been controlled by communist criminals. I wish you would watch it to the end. It takes a long time for the story to unfold. It is wretched to see how the criminals attacked that country repeatedly until they finally got their way. Jeff had never heard of Katanga. I twisted his arm last night and he watched it. He wasn't real happy that it took an hour of his time till 11PM and then he still had stuff he needed to do. But I wanted him to see how our state department welcomed the Communist subverter but would not give a visa to the Katanga Free Market elected leader, but instead worked against him. Jeff was so interested by the time he finished watching he looked at wiki to see what happened to Tshombe. It is interesting to me that he exiled to Spain. I had watched the Spain link before the Katanga link. Here is the information from wiki that Jeff told me about this morning:

"In 1963, UN forces succeeded in capturing Katanga, driving Tshombe into exile in Northern Rhodesia, later to Spain. In July 1964 he returned to the Congo to serve as prime minister in a new Coalition government, but was dismissed from his position in October 1965 by President Joseph Kasavubu. In 1965, Prime Minister Joseph Mobutu, who had staged a successful coup against President Kasavubu, brought charges of treason against Tshombe, who again fled the country, and settled in Spain.

In 1967, he was sentenced to death in absentia.

On June 30, 1967, a Hawker Siddley jet aircraft he was traveling in was hijacked to Algeria, where he was first jailed and then kept under house arrest until his death in June 1969, which is officially recorded as "death from heart failure". The pilots of the plane, two Englishmen, Trevor Coppleston and David Taylor, were released and returned to England. According to the Congolese government Tshombe was going to Africa.[4] He is buried in Etterbeek cemetery near Brussels in Belgium.

[edit] Rumor

In 1968, a mysterious plane load of mercenary soldiers had landed at Kariba Airfield in Rhodesia, and was said also to hold "an African President." Rumor spread that Tshombe had been rescued, but no proof ever came to light of any rescue attempt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moise_Tshomb%C3%A9

------------------
Spain... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqT8uUZxuEU I watched all the links in this series, but #9 willl begin Spain's story, then you will need to watch till the end of #13. I wish they had continued on with the Nazi Fascism story afterward. Jeff tells me that Franco allowed Hitler forces to use some of the Spanish population for "target practic." He hasn't seen these links yet. That is on my agenda. He keeps telling me how Franco sided with Hitler. Well, it seems that Hitler came to his aide while the communist criminals were helping the "republic" Then again, we, not me and you, be the US sided with Russia to defeat Hitler. I watched another Griffin documentary yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPOIOUq2eBY "Capiltalist Conspiracy."

What I am concerned about is how ruthless these people are. I think it is important to know because "they" are after "our" guns now...next in the meat grinder.

You say it is not too late? I see from Katanga that if "they" want something, "they" don't give up until they have it. Even if "they" have to shoot a room full of 5 year olds.

I want to know why "we" rescued China from "Japan" but then let Mao have it.

Katanga is now part of the Democratic Republic. China is the "People's Republic of China." I think it is very important to define the word "Republic" because when it comes time to protect the "Republic" there may just be a 5th column willing to help. That doesn't turn out so well because it is the 5th column that is destroying the republic. And now I see a bunch of Jewish Hate and Zionism Hate and I am wondering, is it a diversion? In that Spain link you will see the propaganda of portraits...we have seen billboards promoting Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela in Kansas City. The Fed charter is up this year...

...

A Single POWER

"I want to know why "we" rescued China from "Japan" but then let Mao have it."

The person named Chiang Kai-shek could be compared with the person named Hugo Chavez not for the labels they are labeled nor for the color of their uniforms, but they can be compared by how much the Single POWER focuses that Single POWER upon those two people, and whomever those two people are connected to in the way that Chiang Kai-shek and Hugo Chavez connect to people.

There are two routines at work, two POWERS, which can have any name you care to name them, and I know you well enough to know that you call the two powers by names such as God and Devil, or Good and Evil.

I call the two Powers by accurate names too, names that don't change the full measure of the POWER, but names that merely intend to specify specific ways of measuring both POWERS.

My list of names:

God versus Devil
Ectropy versus Entropy
Good versus Evil
Productive Reproduction versus Destructive Termination
Monopoly versus Competition
Legal Crime versus Liberty

"I want to know why "we" rescued China from "Japan" but then let Mao have it."

Chiang Kai-shek and Hugo Chavez do not fit into the Routine where the single POWER is commanding all thoughts, and all actions, without question, so that those two people, and whoever is connected to those two people, are people who represent competition in competition with the Routine, or The Business Cycle, or whatever word you want to place on whoever is, in fact, the most powerful (destructive) people on the planet Earth.

Hugo Chavez will either be incorporated into the Routine, or Hugo Chavez will be crushed, in the same was a Chiang Kai-shek, and it may not even be a case of good against bad, it can merely be a battle between the greater and lesser of two evils, and the greater evil wins in each case.

Who controls the better lie?

Who controls the better threat of violence?

Who controls the better violence?

Follow the money and you have the answer, if you care to look.

They, not us, keep meticulous records, which is necessary, a function of power. The power of random occurrence does not play favorites, so the most powerful people know exactly what to do, when to do it, because failure is not an option in that Routine.

The Routine: Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.

The Routine: Might makes Right (a lie)

The opposition to the Routine: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The opposition to the Routine: Right is doing onto others as you would have them do unto you, and if you think making torture and murder legal is RIGHT for you, then you and everyone else who thinks that that is RIGHT can torture and murder each other until the last 2 of you are left, and then everyone else can understand how The Routine works without our involuntary involvement in the Routine.

"The Fed charter is up this year..."

Before World War I, and before World War II, the people who profit the most, and the people who suffered the most had one thing in common.

World War

The people who profit, as in Cui Bono, made it happen on purpose, so they knew it was on the schedule.

The people who suffered the most, well, it stands to reason that they didn't figure it out in time to avoid it, or, not as reasonable, they love to suffer.

I see a need to relink the following two links (leaving out the Wall Street connection to Roosevelt):

Wall Street financing Hitler:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Wall Street financing Stalin:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

It can be said that the two mustached personalities (cult of personality) were well paid employees that went too far.

The same can be said about two Kennedy boys, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden.

I've had a discussion with a family member who asked questions about Obama (what I like to call Obamanation), and I admitted, yes, that one can stop following orders without question too, and be processed by the same Routine too.

When do you know when someone really bothers the most powerful people who are currently in command of The Business Psycho?

It is a familiar tune, so everyone knows it, but few, unfortunately, are willing to own it.

Just look at your wallet.

Just look at your savings account, or checking account, or Credit Card account, or mortgage, or Federal Tax Liability, or anything having any connection to Federal Reserve Notes and know that tune, know it, own it, it is yours too.

Here:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Name that tune?

Use an accurate name, so as to leave the least amount of room for confusion.

Joe

The Routine (by any name) smells the same.

The Familiar Story (not "communists"):

The Philippines
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/...

East Timor
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/timor-conspiracy/

Cambodia
http://www.whale.to/b/colhoun.html

Diego Garcia
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=3702

The cover story used by the so called "communists" are to do whatever is necessary to fight the "capitalists", while at the same time, the cover story used by the so called "capitalists" are to do whatever is necessary to fight the "communists".

Pictures are worth a thousand words, movies are worth more, I suppose, but there isn't anything quite as powerful as being there and having the routine done up close and personal - it seems to me.

Home grown Routine (coming to a church near you)
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page...

By the time the Routine reaches anyone, anywhere, it is too late to know better.

I did not watch the Katanga version of the Routine, from start to finish, and I did not do so because I am in any way trying to justify the communist version of the Routine, as if my own concern is the capitalist version of the Routine.

It is the Routine, by any other name, the same Routine.

I call it Legal Crime, it is Legal Torture, it is Legal Murder, and ONE POWER does it, every time, the same POWER is at work, the names of the specific people may change, and they may even be the same person, in this or that case, changing his or her name, to escape accountability, or other people, employing the same POWER, take up the work load, torturing here, torturing there, murdering here, and murdering there, and so it gets old to me, it get's tiring to me, and I can only stand so much of it.

I have a chore to do at this point, and I do want to return to finish reading your welcome response.

Joe

Humanitarianism

I'm not done reading links yet but here http://www.whale.to/b/colhoun.html :

"When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia and drove the Pol Potists from power in January 1972, Washington took immediate steps to preserve the Khmer Rouge as a guerrilla movement. International relief agencies were pressured by the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas who fled into Thailand. For more than a decade, the Khmer Rouge have used the refugee camps they occupy as military bases to wage a contra-war in Cambodia. According to Linda Mason and Roger Brown, who studied the relief operations in Thailand for Cambodian refugees: "

One think I noted while watching the Spain links...the Communist insurgents from around the world were allowed to "march" right back to their countries when defeated...they were not killed or taken as prisoners. I feel bad saying they were not killed or taken as prisoners. But they had just raped, murdered, and pillaged the Spanish people and when Franco defeated those cities they marched out like a parade some with the “Raised Fists” as in Workers of the World Unite.

Every time I think I can get my head around this stuff I am caught off guard again. Like I cannot accept that we did wrong in the Philippines. I keep wanting us to be the good guys.

But Josf, you see one thing I have noted, is that it seems that people get real discontent with “their” government as a part of “The Routine.” It seems that there are a bunch of us who are real discontent. How do we know that “The Routine” is not being played out here on us, now?

You said: “By the time the Routine reaches anyone, anywhere, it is too late to know better.”

What makes you think we can end the Fed, end the IRS and bring the troops home? They are talking about gun bans now. Did you look at the Spain link? #10 begins with the guns being registered and then confiscated from the Spaniards.

I cannot understand what is going on. Jeff thinks we will be “lighting candles” for Hilary…because she cannot be allowed to testify about Benghazi. People here on the DP are talking about taking the guns being an “act of war.” How can anyone know who the enemy is anymore? Franco had to have help from Hitler in order to have modern war weapons. I do not see any hope if “they” to start “the Routine” or if it has started, it will be “the Routine” and “we” will be “in for a rough ride.” “They” will stop at nothing. Are they moving to China so “they” can have war here? Or are they surrounding China so they can have war there? After all, don’t “they” use protecting interests as a reason for war? Maybe that is why the business have been moved to China, so “we” can protect them? There seems to be so many directions to think in. I have to cook dinner now.

But my plan is to do the first counterpoint and then send it to you to see so you can tell me if I am on the right path. I plan on working on it this evening tomorrow. I still haven’t done Christmas cards so I will have to take a break for that sometime.

Thank you for letting me talk to you about this, I know you said “and so it gets old to me, it get's tiring to me, and I can only stand so much of it.”

I am sorry for bringing it back up. I just cannot believe what I am understanding to be the case, and I am wanting “us” which is “them” to be the good guys. I didn't proof.
...

Spaghetti

I too have to get dinner going.

Your most precious words to me are offered in a form of a question.

This:

"How can anyone know who the enemy is anymore?"

You have an advantage in your safe place, a huge advantage. Another advantage is offered by John Boyd, as Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act.

This is not news either, life is this battle, always has been, those who figure it out better can aid those who have yet to figure it out as well, but your question is one of those questions that has to be asked and the answer has to be accurate.

Joe

You need to dig deeper.

I suggest going through my posts.

FYI: The single biggest problem in this country is that the people do not read the constitution and do not realize the only responsibility of a free people, other than not violating the rights of others - is enforcing the constitution.

Enforcement of the constitution is the people's job. The public servants are like children with a list of rules they have to follow. The people are like the parents of those children who wrote the rules.

We live in a country where the "parents" have posted a list of rules on the fridge and then left the house... and haven't been home in quite some time... yet they send lots of money home to the kids.

They don't call... they don't write... and they just have faith that the rules are being followed and that the kids know what is best.

Agreed...

I tried to allude to that with the distraction of bickering over party politics rather than studying the Constitution. I'll try to make it more obvious.

Thanks for your input. It's truly appreciated.