Inefficient programs that don't solve problems and are passed against the will of the American people seem to be the Obama Administration's forte. Now their high-minded aspirations of a health care revolution are quickly unraveling as fatal glitches in Obamacare become apparent.
Next up for implosion? The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as the "CLASS Act," which creates a government-run long term care insurance program too costly to sustain. At a time when entitlement programs in America have spun out of control, liberal proponents of Obamacare were pushing a new one that had no hope of staying afloat. Now, they are trying hide the fact that they were wrong as another bungling layer of Obamacare is exposed.
From its creation, the CLASS Act was completely unsustainable as written into law. The problem? Due to the effects of adverse selection, the program would charge high premiums that would deter less risky individuals from participating. Indeed, participating in the CLASS program would only appeal to those in poor health expecting to need long-term care in the future, further escalating premiums.
Due to its design, it was clear to Medicare actuaries and even liberal Members of Congress that CLASS would fail before it began. Like so many other aspects of the struggling Obamacare law, this one's flaws are abundantly clear. Brian Blase explains why the CLASS Act is broken and how its ill-conceived design would lead to its inevitable collapse or bailout:
The main problem is that the program's design will result in a badly skewed pool of participants ... This means healthy individuals are less likely to participate because they do not receive credit in the form of a lower premium, like they would if they purchased [long-term-care] insurance in the private market. Instead, CLASS participants are likely to be disabled individuals who are able to work part-time and individuals who anticipate future [long-term-care] needs.
Moreover, the adverse selection problem is exacerbated because individuals earning below the poverty line are subjected to only a $5 monthly premium, and less healthy people are much more likely to be below the poverty line. The artificially low premium for them means that premiums will have to be much higher for others, which will diminish overall enrollment in the program and worsen its long-run solvency. The poor design of CLASS almost guarantees that the program will collapse or need a bailout.
Last week, Heritage reported on internal emails sent prior to Obamacare's passage warning the Obama Administration of CLASS's impending disaster. While former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends were frantically shoving the 3,000 page health care bill through Congress, they were ignoring vital information about a program that was actuarially unsound and completely unworkable. In fact, as Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported, federal health experts told them via email that CLASS would result in an "insurance death spiral." Congress passed it anyway.
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius has since stated that CLASS is "totally sustainable" and "financially unsound." The Department claimed it could solve these problems using its administrative authority, but the only way CLASS could possibly survive would be via a taxpayer bailout, varying premiums according health status, or by mandating worker participation--none of which are acceptable options. It's time to admit they are fighting a losing battle.
Bob Yee, chief actuary for the Health and Human Services office that administers the CLASS Act, recently left the office after being told his services weren't needed. He told The Wall Street Journal that other office staffers were being reassigned.
HHS is subsequently denying that they are killing the CLASS Act despite no longer having any employees working in its office. It's likely that the Administration has finally come to the realization that CLASS is beyond help.
A bicameral group of Republican Members of Congress are demanding answers in an oversight letter sent to HHS requesting information on their latest moves and what they knew about CLASS before Obamacare became law. Given CLASS' financial instability, James Capretta and Brian Riedl explain that Congress' best move is to repeal the law instead of piling debt upon debt with yet another unsustainable entitlement:
CLASS is destined to run short of funds, creating pressure for another massive taxpayer bailout. The biggest threat to the long-term prosperity of the country is the massive unfunded liabilities for the nation’s major entitlement program. The last thing Congress should be doing is adding to the burden of future taxpayers, which is why CLASS Act repeal is the most fiscally responsible—and ethical—course to follow.
So while HHS tries to cover their tracks by claiming CLASS is still being analyzed, it's clear that the only responsible thing for them to do is admit they were wrong in the first place and end this awful program before it's too late. And more importantly, Congress should repeal Obamacare before the biggest implosion of all hits the American people.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality
Published September 22, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Western Hills High School.
An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.
Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.
“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”
And that’s what got him in trouble.
Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”
“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”
Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.
Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:
“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”
After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.
“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”
Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.
“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”
Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.
“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”
Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”
“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.
The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.
“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.
Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.
“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”
“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”
Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.
He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.
“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/#ixzz1YmxnjFbf
Western Hills High School.
An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.
Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.
“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”
And that’s what got him in trouble.
Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”
“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”
Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.
Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:
“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”
After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.
“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”
Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.
“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”
Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.
“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”
Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”
“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.
The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.
“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.
Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.
“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”
“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”
Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.
He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.
“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/#ixzz1YmxnjFbf
Friday, September 16, 2011
God Is Love
September 16, 2011
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16)
God is clearly "the Lord, the righteous judge" (2 Timothy 4:8), but He is also "the God of love and peace" (2 Corinthians 13:11). Not only in our text verse but also in another place, we are reminded that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Of all the attributes of God, His nature of love is the most definitive. God is love!
It was not His omnipotence nor His omniscience that constrained Him to create men and women in His image. It must have been His nature of love, the desire for fellowship with beings like Himself. There is not much revealed on this question--only hints. "I have created him for my glory" (Isaiah 43:7). "The LORD hath made all things for himself" (Proverbs 16:4).
But fellowship is a two-way relationship and requires freedom to choose on the part of both. When man volitionally broke that fellowship, sin came into the world and God's creation purpose was to all appearances set aside.
But God is love! He had not only a plan of creation but also a plan of salvation already in process. He "saved us, . . . according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:9).
And so "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us" (1 John 3:1). God is, indeed, a God of love! HMM
Institute for Creation Research | 1806 Royal Lane | Dallas | TX | 75229
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16)
God is clearly "the Lord, the righteous judge" (2 Timothy 4:8), but He is also "the God of love and peace" (2 Corinthians 13:11). Not only in our text verse but also in another place, we are reminded that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Of all the attributes of God, His nature of love is the most definitive. God is love!
It was not His omnipotence nor His omniscience that constrained Him to create men and women in His image. It must have been His nature of love, the desire for fellowship with beings like Himself. There is not much revealed on this question--only hints. "I have created him for my glory" (Isaiah 43:7). "The LORD hath made all things for himself" (Proverbs 16:4).
But fellowship is a two-way relationship and requires freedom to choose on the part of both. When man volitionally broke that fellowship, sin came into the world and God's creation purpose was to all appearances set aside.
But God is love! He had not only a plan of creation but also a plan of salvation already in process. He "saved us, . . . according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:9).
And so "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us" (1 John 3:1). God is, indeed, a God of love! HMM
Institute for Creation Research | 1806 Royal Lane | Dallas | TX | 75229
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Nature Article Inadvertently Confirms Dinosaur Design
Nature Article Inadvertently Confirms Dinosaur Design
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Sep. 15, 2011
Sauropods, such as Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, were immense, four-footed dinosaurs. By their fossils, researchers know that their unique skeletal design features were specially equipped to support their bulk. In a recent Nature report, an attempt to trace an evolutionary backstory for each of these features clung doggedly to evolution despite the evidence against it—evidence highlighted in the article itself.
Fredric Heeren wrote in Nature that sauropods' long necks allowed them a wide reach through the treetops, so they could gather foliage without having to continually move their massive bodies. In this way, they were able to obtain food fast enough to maintain their size. Some of the largest may have required up to a ton of vegetation per day. Heeren wrote:
That kind of feeding required long necks, which would have been impossibly heavy if they were built with solid vertebrae. But large sauropods had vertebrae riddled with holes. These air-filled, or pneumatic, bones weighed only about 35% as much as solid ones.1
Thus, sauropods had hollowed vertebrae and small brains, which meant small heads, to lighten the overall load placed on their necks. Also, the "pelvis and limbs" of sauropods were very different from those of much smaller dinosaurs, having extra sacral vertebrae and interlocking leg bones that formed pillars which "created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft," according to Heeren.1
Sauropods also grew very quickly during their juvenile years, so that their sheer size soon became their best defense against predators. Imaginary transitional semi-sauropods, with the slower growth rates of other dinosaurs and without large, tooth-adorned jaws, or horns, claws, or clubs for defense, may well have been too easily eaten—thus putting a stop to evolutionary progress.
These dinosaurs' fast bone and body growth was unique, complicated, and precisely coordinated. Heeren quoted University of Bonn paleontologist Martin Sander as saying, "A scaffold of bone is thrown up very quickly, making the bone grow in thickness by about one tenth of a millimetre per day."1 The scaffold material was later filled in with minerals as the creature grew in size.
Clearly, sauropods had all-or-nothing design features. Thus, evolutionists have imagined that all of them arose suddenly in "an evolutionary jump."1 The Nature news feature suggested that isolated sauropod-like features found in non-sauropod dinosaur kinds illustrate an evolutionary backstory for sauropod origins.
For example, a small non-sauropod named Pantydraco had interesting pits in its vertebrae, "potential precursors" for the hollow vertebrae. Also, the thirty-foot-long "prosauropod" Plateosaurus might have had "signs" of fast-growing bone.1
Similarly, Aardonyx, a two-legged dinosaur, probably did not have fleshy cheeks, which might have enabled it to open its jaws wide enough to grab big mouthfuls of foliage, like sauropods could. No comparison with "cheekless" carnivores was given. Though Heeren wrote "that adaptation enabled the development of extremely long necks," such wishful thinking merely begs the question of sauropod long neck evolution since no explanation is given for how one adaptation could have led to the other.1
Leonerosaurus, another two-legged dinosaur, had extra sacral vertebrae like sauropods. And though they are considered by some to have been "near-sauropods," Heeren noted that they "were not the ancestors of sauropods." Why even mention them in the context of sauropod evolution if they were not part of sauropod evolution? Heeren wrote, "Near-sauropods of the Jurassic preserve information about the adaptations that appeared among the unknown ancestors of sauropods."1
Thus, after presenting a parade of dinosaur candidates with supposed sauropod precursor features, Heeren acknowledged that the ancestors of sauropods are still "unknown."
If sauropods evolved, then why are there no fossil "pre-sauropods" that have at least two, three, or four of the uniquely sauropod features, instead of just one or merely a possible part of one? And why are the candidate "prosauropods" perfectly developed creatures of their own types, just like sauropods were, with no hint of evolutionary experimentation among the fossils?
The reason that sauropods have no known evolutionary ancestor, and the reason why their evolution is imagined to have happened in a "jump," is because they were intentionally built at one time, not gradually or even suddenly morphed from another creature. This is what their all-or-nothing structure demands, and what the Bible presents.2
Reference
1.Heeren, F. 2011. Dinosaurs: Rise of the titans. Nature. 475: 159-161.
2.Genesis 1:24-25.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Sep. 15, 2011
Sauropods, such as Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, were immense, four-footed dinosaurs. By their fossils, researchers know that their unique skeletal design features were specially equipped to support their bulk. In a recent Nature report, an attempt to trace an evolutionary backstory for each of these features clung doggedly to evolution despite the evidence against it—evidence highlighted in the article itself.
Fredric Heeren wrote in Nature that sauropods' long necks allowed them a wide reach through the treetops, so they could gather foliage without having to continually move their massive bodies. In this way, they were able to obtain food fast enough to maintain their size. Some of the largest may have required up to a ton of vegetation per day. Heeren wrote:
That kind of feeding required long necks, which would have been impossibly heavy if they were built with solid vertebrae. But large sauropods had vertebrae riddled with holes. These air-filled, or pneumatic, bones weighed only about 35% as much as solid ones.1
Thus, sauropods had hollowed vertebrae and small brains, which meant small heads, to lighten the overall load placed on their necks. Also, the "pelvis and limbs" of sauropods were very different from those of much smaller dinosaurs, having extra sacral vertebrae and interlocking leg bones that formed pillars which "created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft," according to Heeren.1
Sauropods also grew very quickly during their juvenile years, so that their sheer size soon became their best defense against predators. Imaginary transitional semi-sauropods, with the slower growth rates of other dinosaurs and without large, tooth-adorned jaws, or horns, claws, or clubs for defense, may well have been too easily eaten—thus putting a stop to evolutionary progress.
These dinosaurs' fast bone and body growth was unique, complicated, and precisely coordinated. Heeren quoted University of Bonn paleontologist Martin Sander as saying, "A scaffold of bone is thrown up very quickly, making the bone grow in thickness by about one tenth of a millimetre per day."1 The scaffold material was later filled in with minerals as the creature grew in size.
Clearly, sauropods had all-or-nothing design features. Thus, evolutionists have imagined that all of them arose suddenly in "an evolutionary jump."1 The Nature news feature suggested that isolated sauropod-like features found in non-sauropod dinosaur kinds illustrate an evolutionary backstory for sauropod origins.
For example, a small non-sauropod named Pantydraco had interesting pits in its vertebrae, "potential precursors" for the hollow vertebrae. Also, the thirty-foot-long "prosauropod" Plateosaurus might have had "signs" of fast-growing bone.1
Similarly, Aardonyx, a two-legged dinosaur, probably did not have fleshy cheeks, which might have enabled it to open its jaws wide enough to grab big mouthfuls of foliage, like sauropods could. No comparison with "cheekless" carnivores was given. Though Heeren wrote "that adaptation enabled the development of extremely long necks," such wishful thinking merely begs the question of sauropod long neck evolution since no explanation is given for how one adaptation could have led to the other.1
Leonerosaurus, another two-legged dinosaur, had extra sacral vertebrae like sauropods. And though they are considered by some to have been "near-sauropods," Heeren noted that they "were not the ancestors of sauropods." Why even mention them in the context of sauropod evolution if they were not part of sauropod evolution? Heeren wrote, "Near-sauropods of the Jurassic preserve information about the adaptations that appeared among the unknown ancestors of sauropods."1
Thus, after presenting a parade of dinosaur candidates with supposed sauropod precursor features, Heeren acknowledged that the ancestors of sauropods are still "unknown."
If sauropods evolved, then why are there no fossil "pre-sauropods" that have at least two, three, or four of the uniquely sauropod features, instead of just one or merely a possible part of one? And why are the candidate "prosauropods" perfectly developed creatures of their own types, just like sauropods were, with no hint of evolutionary experimentation among the fossils?
The reason that sauropods have no known evolutionary ancestor, and the reason why their evolution is imagined to have happened in a "jump," is because they were intentionally built at one time, not gradually or even suddenly morphed from another creature. This is what their all-or-nothing structure demands, and what the Bible presents.2
Reference
1.Heeren, F. 2011. Dinosaurs: Rise of the titans. Nature. 475: 159-161.
2.Genesis 1:24-25.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
EXAMPLE
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.
Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
EXAMPLE
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.
Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
