A MESSAGE FROM AN AMERICAN PATRIOT TO HIS OWN PEOPLE

To: Americans everywhere;
Thank you for your time and attention.
First, please let me be very clear, what I have written here for your consideration is not about the Republican Party, Democrat Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party or any other Party. It is about an idea conceived over two centuries ago, a country, a people, a document.

Two hundred and twenty nine years ago (1787) a group of men whom we now refer to as the "founding fathers," following a long and bloody battle for their independence from a dictatorial Monarchy, assembled themselves together in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and did their best to establish a country governed in a God-fearing way by representatives who were selected by the people who were to be governed.
No where in the history of all mankind were there any examples or even political theory in existence that offered them any hope that a republican form of government, based on the new concept of consent of the governed, could succeed on a wilderness continent which was much larger than any European state.

These men met there on the world stage to carry out the first of three acts in this epic political drama, the drafting of the United States Constitution. The final document was the culmination of a fierce political struggle that had been waged for four sweltering summer months in secret behind guarded closed doors. The document sought to reconcile individual personal liberty with the perceived need for a central government with powers to forge a political and economic common market among thirteen separate and sovereign states.

The next two acts to be performed on this world stage were the ratification of the document and the translation from words on parchment paper to institutional form and structure. In 1789 the first congress approved and sent to the states for ratification, a bill of rights of individual liberty, and additional rights reserved to the states. Those ten amendments, ratified on December 15, 1791, became an extremely vital part of the Constitution and crucial to greatly limiting the power of the Federal Government over both that of the people and separate states. The Republic of the United States of America, an experiment in people governing themselves was now a reality for the first time in the history of man. Newcomers from other countries, willing to be governed by it's Constitution and Bill of Rights, and themselves, came in droves through the established legal immigration process, to this new land of government by the governed.

I here bring to your attention that the United States of America was formed as a Republic and not a Democracy. All our lives you and I have been conditioned to believe we are a Democracy in America. How long has it been since you have heard of America referred to as a Republic?  You see, there was purpose behind the words in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag referring to our country as, "the Republic for which it stands." Ladies and gentlemen rest assured there is a very good reason the term "democracy" does not exist either in our Constitution or the Declaration of our Independence.  A true Democracy is mob rule.  Any government set up as a Democracy is the same government we would have if we were set up as a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist government.  In these forms the government is a mob ruling over the people with absolutely no rights for individuals or minorities.

It has been written, "The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life."  Democracy and/or Socialism is mob rule by government.  The founders of America were all too familiar with democracies/socialism, and deliberately did everything in their power to prevent a Democracy.  It has been written, "In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves.  In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem."  The people have no obligation to the government; the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to them, for they are its owner.  Not only have many politicians, Republican and Democrat, lost sight of this fact, but a great many of the American people.

A Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The goal of our founding fathers in forming a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the disastrous extremes of either tyranny (absolute ruler) or "mobocracy." (government mob).  I borrowed the following from Darrell Huckaby:

"I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote.  We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies.  The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished.  If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote.  If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved.  In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.
 
For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.
 
“Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.”

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people.  We are a republic.  We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other.  Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people."

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government"...If we the American people don't stop this and start a reversal of the present trend, the free Republic of America will be lost for generations to come to a Socialist, tyrannical government mob.  It begs the question, "Do we really care enough?"  There seems to be a great awakening of all freedom loving Americans to the fact, that a people can become slaves to the government, as well as a plantation owner.  Do you really care enough?  I believe we said yes to that question on November 8th by electing Donald Trump to start a reversal of the present trend toward government rule, and returning this country to people rule.

"And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition of power.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment.  You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed."
 
You have my permission to leave my information below intact as you please forward to all you can in any method you wish.
May God bless America at this critical time in our history.
Until next time: Your friend in freedom;
John Porter
Harrison, Arkansas 72601

 
DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC?  A CANADIAN’S RESPONSE
Wallace Klinck responded to American John Porter’s Letter
On 22/11/2016, at 11:07 AM, Wallace Klinck wrote:
Thanks, John. 
I agree with you about the nature of so-called “democracy”.  We have the same problem in Canada with politicians and others (often but by no means always those on the “Left” side of the political spectrum) referring to our form of government as a “democracy”.  Of course, we have no such thing.  Ours is a Constitutional Monarchy with elected Representative Government.  An ill-informed and often highly emotional majority vote of one does not establish the basis for realistic policy or of “truth.”  Indeed, it would be a virtual nightmare with everyone voting on every possible issue.  The reality is that a majoritarian political “democracy” is an abstract conception and could never function except in the imagination of the Utopian mind. It would disintegrate into chaos immediately.  At which time it would become captured by a group of tyrants who would emerge to rule by authoritarian decree as the people clamoured for some kind of stability and security. Marxian Socialism and Communism were never ruled by “the people” but rather by an entrenched Elite who by various ruthless and deceptive stratagems managed to ascend to the top of the power structure, which spread its tentacles throughout society.  Fascism, although being somewhat more economically efficient as a combine of the State with large industry, is somewhat similar, being a system of National Socialism rather than having an internationalist outlook.  Both have a fatal weakness insofar as they fail to recognize that the strength of a nation derives from initiative and imagination resident in individual creative persons with freedom to act independently from external coercion, and not from uniformity dictated from the commanding heights and enforced in accord with abstract ideology. 

A genuine “democracy” would mean that human association serves the satisfaction of the individuals of the group. The reason that people associate is to derive some advantage(s) which cannot be attained by individual action. There is a very definite unearned increment to be derived from association.  For example, the larger the subscription to a telephone service, the greater the advantage in belonging to the subscribers’ list. People with different talents, skills and resources can function together to produce results otherwise unattainable by the individual. The knowledge and technique which such activity generates become a vast accumulated Cultural Heritage which passes on with great advantage to succeeding generations.  Compulsory compliance cannot be the basis of successful association because such a form of association cannot be held responsible in delivery of desired results.  The primary control of the individual to generate successful associations resides fundamentally in the right to “contract out” and to atrophy the association if it is not producing the results expected by its members.  One cannot contract out of society but the most successful and rewarding form of association occurs where there is minimal direct State intervention in the lives of the people and association is fluid and ad hoc to the largest practical extent.  We should, as Major C. H. Douglas said, build up from the individual and not down from the State.  In other words, there is no appropriate substitute for individual freedom—but individual freedom can only most successfully exist where individuals have a high level of honesty and integrity and the need to appeal to a “higher authority” for protection is minimal.

However, Douglas also observed that political “democracy” without its balancing economic counterpart is fatal to society and explains the perpetual inability of societies to form stable and viable productive and political associations.  “Economic Democracy” does not mean as the Marxists claim, "control of production by the workers in State-owned production facilities”  The sole purpose of production is to serve the needs of consumption.  Its primary purpose is to deliver results.  It has nothing to do with providing “work” and its successful performance in carrying out its function is properly measured by its maximum efficiency in doing so with a minimal amount of required human input.  In a genuine economic democracy the policy of production would be controlled by the consumers who, by means of their purchasing-power or “money-votes”, would elicit from producers the products which they desire, rewarding or punishing producers in this manner by their freely expressed preferential effective demand.   Consumer control of production policy in a free society is the only basis of rational economics.

Unfortunately, consumers do not possess the control over production policy which they should have.  Douglas demonstrated that they are far short of being able to purchase what has been produced by means of their earned incomes, and increasingly unable in the modernizing economy as human effort is replaced by real capital (i.e., “tools”) and labour becomes an ever smaller component of industrial financial cost and price relative to capital.  The manner in which financial credit is issued for production, recovered by industry via prices and cancelled by the banks, ensures that the monetary equivalent of the nation’s capital is prematurely cancelled and the public is left in respect of it with an accumulating inflationary financial debt or mortgage which must be repaid via a charge on future production cycles. Inasmuch as the Banking System, as a Monopoly of Credit, is our only source of “money” and issues it to monetize the community’s real credit only as a debt owing to itself, society must become evermore submerged in debt to that System as the price of being allowed to function.  Because of the inherent increasing shortage of purchasing-power not only are consumers required to incur mounting personal debts but governments intervene evermore to enhance buying power by borrowing and spending themselves, thereby to create permanent and ever expanding public debt. This makes complete nonsense of the widespread advocacy, under the existing financial or credit system, of balanced budgets—which if enacted would bring economies to standstill and collapse because this would stop the flow of credit required by industry to liquidate its earlier costs of production.

The price-system must be made self-liquidating through an adequate flow of effective consumer purchasing-power but this should not be done in a manner that merely passes the costs of production on as a mounting charge against future production and incomes. Society should not be required to pay twice over for its real capital (plant, tools, etc.) as an eternal tribute to the Banks as monopolists who, by their sole power to provide our purchasing-power, exercise ultimate and arbitrary control over our ability to produce and consume.  The banks regard the credit they create as their commodity and they seek to enhance its scarcity value by making it artificially in short supply in relation to the actual needs of society.  Properly conceived, “money” is simply a system of accountancy which provides information required for the orderly conduct of business as it creates financial costs and prices in the act of production and cancels these costs through receipts from sales to the consuming public.  “Money” should be created at the rate of production and cancelled at the rate of consumption and should merely reflect what we do and never prevent us from doing anything that is both psychologically desired and physically possible.
Sincerely, Wallace Klinck
 
P.S.  I think there is confusion between ‘a democratic system’ (political structure) and the ‘democratic process’ (electoral process)…. Betty Luks
 

Rod Culleton in 'WHAT’S UP ROD?'
SEEKING-RENT AT THE CLIMATE CONFERENCE