"Democracy has succeeded in bringing us the oligarchy. We are living the rule of the few now partially due to the ignorance that gave rise to the fallacy stating that democracy and republic are interchangeable terms."
this video is completely historically inaccurate. there was no anarchist period in russia. After the Tsar was killed and the bolsheviks took power, there was a provisional government.
And when Hitler caused fighting in the streets against the communist party members, the Weimar government was in power. and for some reason it shows footage of Fidel Castro? Why the hell would it show Castro, there was no anarchy in Cuba. Piece of bullshit propaganda
@SecularNumanist Because they are republicans, they are stupid and have no idea that A COUNTRY CAN BE A REPUBLIC AND ALSO BE A DEMOCRACY, look at france.
A republic can also be a dictatorship, if it lacks democracy, and these republicans want to have a fucked up ancient republic like rome, and you know how much rome cared for people who didn't have money and power.
well really the polictal spectrum is a circle not a line. To say Fasiscm is left wing is RUBBISH Hitler was stauch right wing it is just a way of the vidoe trying to make Right wong values look the best. Wow im stopping watching the vidoe already just casue it is misinforming straight away
@julianpav if by right wing you mean socialist, than you are right. Hitler, and Stalin agreed on just about everything, there only fight was who would control it.
"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents"....Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Taylor
It's obvious that we have an oligarchy (or at least close to one), and we need a Republic. For anyone who is worried about chaos, contemplate this statement by Zarathustra: "One must have a chaos inside oneself, to give birth to a dancing star".
I think the same is true for countries, as well as people. If their is any change, there will be an inevitable time of chaos while the change happens. But don't be afraid of it; it's a wonderful sign, in disguise, of good things to come!
@rigslip - Anarchy leads to chaos. dictionary says: 1) a state of society without government or law. 2) political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
@robmonty248 im not weak in my mind i can reason i know what is true and i know what is false i make decisions based on science math and yes religion and history and it is working for me .im not a puppet im not stupid either when i see someone on tv say something i dont take it as fact i actually search it and think about it before making a conclusion .
nice video but it makes a fatal flaw about democracy. It says that demo, people, and cracy, people is rule by the majority of the people which is taken immediately to be 50% of the people. Rule by the people may be taken as greater than 75% or more. Furthermore, traditional approaches hold that 50% of votes cast constitute the majority. The silent refuse to endorse any option presented for a reason AND differ radically from the views of the politically active.
@emaleroland "Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." How that equal say is establish is open to wide interpretation, and direct suffrage by simple majority is only one way. There are many kinds of majority: Simple majority, absolutely majority, and a super majority to name a few.
@landen99 dude, you're high. Democracy deals with a simple majority, not a super majority like what we have in the Senate. It's pointless. Out founding fathers gave us a Republic. We know because they said so and they said they didn't want a democracy. The word democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution or the constitution of any of the 50 states, even once. If we're a democracy, can you explain that?
@emaleroland Our democracy uses a simple majority most of the time, but "rule by the people" may use other kinds of majorities, if it wishes. While we were given a republic, we have evolved through our living constitution more into a direct democracy with a president directly elected by the people (as opposed to by the electoral college, except in formality only), senators elected by the people directly (as opposed to by the states), and laws placed on the ballot by the people .
@emaleroland If the popular vote of each state wins each respective state, then yes it does. The views of those "representatives" elected in the electoral college do not matter because they always vote the will of the people of their state, and so the representative democracy (the republic being merely one form of democracy) is reduced to a direct democracy by state. We are only a republic when our representative aristocrats have the power to ignore their constituents.
@landen99 No it doesn't. And the electoral college is what picks the President, based on the popular vote but they are not bound to vote that way and have not always voted that way and it's not the popular vote. You can with the electoral college and not have the popular vote. Ask Al Bore. You're making no sense whatsoever.
@landen99 "the republic being merely one form of democracy"...what?
I challenge you to prove that "majority rule" (democracy) is a form of "rule of law" (republic).
The video depicts the perfect example of the difference; the legal right (republic) of a wanted man being protected from the harms of a mob (democracy).
You are conveniently incorrectly equating voting rights to democracy.
If anything, the Republic is giving the people a taste of democracy; not the other way around.
@landen99 "Rule by the people may be taken as greater than 75% "
Possibly. However, that would require a rule (law) to dictate that distinction. And, a governing body to enforce that rule, which is governance by law (Republic).
"The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control by Marshall Law; it is control by the psychological manipulation of consciousness through which reality is defined so that those that exist within it do not even realize that they're in prison."
Learn Quantum Physics and STOP watching this as, if you think it, your guilty of it.
Will Thy Kingdom to come = Thought becomes reality, TV injects thought, Both FEAR and LOVE create, Discontinue watching these types.
So according to the spectrum at 1:00, a Muslim Fundamentalist or Christian Dominionist theocracy would be at the far left end of the spectrum, since the religiously-anointed govt. has total power?
@KarlBonner1982 Exactly. Control by a religious faction that doesn't believe in true Natural Law, will put you to the left of the spectrum. Many fundamentalists will do that.
That is EXACTLY why many founders even came to America to get away from religious persecution.
However, religious group(s) that follow God's laws .. which are inalienable rights, such as individual freedom, liberty, justice, and the allowance of pursuit of happiness will not be on the left but could be center.
@w7qho Total BS? No doubt a leftist. The good news is, this video is being watched by moderate to left moderate and they have the where with all to admit in light of this knowledge they receive, they rethink their entire political views. This video wil save our country. Truth and facts are the death to the leftist statist. Enjoy your last days. Unless you change soon, America will leave you behind and you'll be left with your agenda. And hated and be looked upon as a dangerous threat 2 liberty
I like how heroic music played during the description of the republic, but during the description of the democracy, a mob takes down the American flag.
I consider myself a Conservative/Libertarian. But mostly an American. I believe it is time to strip away the damage that has been caused since the 30's. Reverse course completely and return the power to the people. Thomas Jefferson along with the founding fathers authored the greatest document ever written by man. And we have a government that doesn't even follow it! It is time to look for new leaders.
Is Plato talking about us Americans in The Republic discussing a Republican form of representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson expressed his fears that democracy is quite simply mob rule by 51% against 49% of the population.
I unfortunately do not have ready access to the book you have suggested.
However, I will say this: In my understanding of it (from a year old memory of U.S. history) 'liberals' had more expansionary policies then 'conservatives'. Though i am willing to admit that saying Alice is a Conservative and Bob is a Liberal is speaking in generalizations, Every person has ideas regarding different problems.
P.S. You don't have to keep resending the message three times. I got it the first time.
It doesn't matter about the party, it is who that person is, that we do elect to be there! They can be from any party, but if the Forefathers does not mean or the Constitution, anything to them! We will go the same way we are! Freedom is not Free, so we must give up time to study who we put in there!
What a ridiculous mischaracterization of "Anarchy." Anarchism is not for "no law," it's for *private* law, not *monopolized* law. It's not that you don't hire people to protect you, it's that those who you can hire *compete* for your business, not *tax*. What makes gov't so bad is the absence of a market. This fantasy of a monopoly gov't which serves the people is just that
Anarchy is the absence of any type of order. Private law, or hiring others to do your bidding (followers), would be a monarchy, as you would be the "king". Anarchy is not sustainable. No matter how much your professors tell you it is a viable form of government or agent of change.
You're fooling no intellectual worth his salt by trying to define Anarchism as an absence of order. The most ordered systems we know of come from markets which are entirely spontaneous. The weakest orders come from bureacracies and gov't. Monarchy is an autoarchic form of gov't. Anarchy is an absence of gov't, but NOT necessarily order. What's more, your assumption that I'm spoonfed my ideology by professors only denigrates you. If anyting, professors today are brainwashing
I didn't realize that you are an intellectual. I am not trying to fool you or anybody. I am not an intellectual, I believe in common sense. Markets/ trade all exist on rules. You give me that & I'll give you this. I need that so I'm willing to give you this. That doesn't sound spontaneous. That sounds like one party has a current or future need & wants to fulfill that need by barter. If you negate your part of the bargain, you will have no future trading partners.
I'm not trying to be rude, but paragraphs like this are just elementary and don't in anyway cut to the heart of the matter. When we say spontaneous, we mean there were no overmasters at the top commanding people to do specific things. Prices themselves are spontaneously formed. No one really knows where they're headed exactly, just where they are and where they've been. The market produces these functions by itself. This is what ancaps and chaos theorists call spontaneous order.
Barter is a local economy and in now way represents the full nature of the market.
Watch this video: /watch?v=FOFdvPyp1rI
I can provide more formal videos later. An intellectual is not synonymous with Progressive; indeed, so-called "progressives," if anything, are anti-intellectual and REgressive! What's more, when I speak of anarchist literature, I'm talking about Murray Rothbard, Hoppe, or Walter Block, not your local UCLA socialist professor. Although there are such
things as ANARCHO-socialists. I'm referring predominantly to anarcho-CAPITALISTS. We believe in a total market society--every damn thing privatized.
You got me all wrong. I'll be one of the most productive citizens of this species--I just want myself and others to keep more, if not all, of the fruits of our labor.
You got a long way to go on the path. Keep reading, thinking, and challenging yourself.
students to be pro-gov't socialists. I'm willing to bet the house you have almost zero exposure to anarchist literature. Trying to throw your weight around in conversations like this without any relevant knowledge is just sad.
Good thing you didn't wager. I grew up next to Berkeley, so I've had to listen to all of the bile & spittle spewing from the masses of foul-mouthed "progressives" that don't want to get up & go to work everyday (or any day).
We must restore the Republic or we will remain a plutocracy disguised as a Democracy. In order to preserve a Republic... there needs to be enough people with weapons and enough people with access to military hardware willing to fight to restore the Republic... because the demagogues and the unwashed masses of worthless turds on the dole will not give up their cash cow without an actual physical fight. They have laid claim to everyone else's property and will lie, riot and murder to keep it.
@Bluto2973 There's always a difference between theory and practice. Practically all states are either plutocracies or oligarchies. Democracy, republic, that's all nonsense. All ideologies can be twisted to fit any system.
@buzzhawk I agree that all ideologies can be twisted to "fit any system." However, people need to understand our system of government. Our Founders were fully aware of the pitfalls of democracy. That's why they gave us a republic. That's why it takes a supermajority -- instead of, let's say, a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate -- to end debate on a bill. It's why you don't even need to win the popular vote to become president. Al Gore can explain that to you.
@Bluto2973 A republican system is by definition an aristocratic system. Today's system is aristocratic under the disguise of a democracy. The American constitution was at the time of it's making the manifest of a new aristocracy in reply to the feudal system which was still prevalent in Europe, so it's profound meaning is no different. It's all about the nature of the elites: their whims set the topics for debates and the course of action in a society. Right now the elites are rotten to the core
@grimmata Aristocracy = rule of the competent. By definition, and according to this video, a republic means the rule of law. In a republic, society is administered by the lawmakers to benefit the people, not the people themselves.
So you're talking about an "aristocracy of the competent" as opposed to the ruling class/ elites/ nobility? I think republic is a little vague, but our system has us "ruled" by representatives elected from the people.
@grimmata The original meaning of the word is rule of the competent. It became denatured when competence was associated with heredity or family ties. Those elected representatives are part of an oligarchy. Elections are just a PR exercise.
@Bluto2973 Also, today we're dealing with an "uniformisation" of political issues. Certain views are no longer accepted. The current ideological trends are advantageous to certain people, but if they weren't, they'd be discarded in a second. The American constitution was at it's time a reflection of new interests, however there are some age-old truths to which the founding fathers of the American republic were myopic to and were the basis of the ancient system it wanted to emulate.
@Bluto2973 That ancient system was the Roman republic. It didn't have any constitution, it was ruled by a tradition which incorporated these notions: a natural aristocracy, rule by the qualified, the reality of ethnicity. In time, that tradition was forgotten and autocracy was instaured. It all happened because the original concept of citizenship was enlarged and the entire concept lost it's meaning. The same is happening today all over the West.
So, if the Roman republic didn't have any rules, what were the 12 tables? Wouldn't that be their constitution? Didn't they have a system of elected representatives? Didn't they overthrow the rule of kings/ aristocracy? Since they were all Romans, I don't think that "the reality of ethnicity" had too much to do with who could be elected. The republic fell due to internal conflict, not because of a forgotten tradition. The winners of the civil wars each declared themselves sole ruler.
@grimmata They didn't have a written constitution, and the 12 tables formed the foundation for Roman law, which was maintained under both the Roman republic and later empire, which was monarchical. So regardless of any form of government, they didn't form the central document which dictates the core values of a state, like a constitution. And I didn't say they didn't have any rules on running a government, they had, but they weren't codified in a constitution.
@grimmata And their core republican system was aristocratic. They did have elected assemblies, but they didn't hold any real power. That power was in the hands of the senate, which was an aristocratic body. And ethnicity was very important to the Romans, considering that for example that all their kings were Etruscan. "They were all Romans" like you said, but being "Roman" originally meant belonging to the Roman ethnicity, unless you didn't read much history and you generalize like that.
@grimmata And the republic came down by internal strife caused by an expanding state, which added more and more ethnic groups. To run such a diverse state they needed to have a more authoritarian system, and the republic became obsolete. It's a cycle of history with which you're not familiar.
@Bluto2973 And that's nothing but the logical conclusion of the American constitution. We don't need to go back to that, only to a certain forgotten tradition, and today that's impossible.
@buzzhawk I've read all of your reponses -- and you make some very interesting points. What distinguishes us from earlier republics is our Constitution. I would argue that we do need to go back to that. Provide for our common defense and ensure individual liberty are the basic tenants of our federal government -- or the way it should be. Over the last 100 years or so we've moved gradually toward the nanny state. The more gov't gets involved the worse we are. They've bankrupted the country.
@TheGuitarProphet Believe in freedom and the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Search YouTube for "Milton Friedman" and look at all of his stuff. You'll figure it out.
"The people" is the collective BODY of the people, not a bunch of individuals rounding up a gunman and voting amongst themselves whether or not to hang him.
49 individuals vote for a hanging, Joe Gunman goes free. 51 individuals vote for a hanging, Joe better have his will squared away. 50 individuals vote for a hanging, hung jury & they have a new vote or Joe goes free. So a bunch of individuals rounding up a gunman is the majority rule if Joe doesn't have a set of laws to protect his individual freedom.
There is a reason why our laws are more likely to let a guilty man go free. Because our Founders did believe there would be a judgement day in the afterlife. And anyone they let free would be judged by God. They believed in Divine Providence. They woud rather let a guilty man go free than have an innocent man die for that very reason.
You should study the Constitution mangaire, as America was founded as a Representative Republic. If you are actually interested you should also read Essay #10 of the Federalist Papers. The Founders were very clear about not being a democracy.
Who cares what you reckon you mental midget. Take your racist whitey hating rants and use them on your friends. They may be impressed and think you are a real big shot, no one in America will! The fake president is also half white, dumbass!
BOTH parties are extra-Constitutional or they govern OUTSIDE Our Constitution. The only thing that differs are their respective agendas right or left.
One can claim to be "closer" to the center, but it is still Progressive as long as it illegitimately governs outside Our Constitution.
BOTH Progressive wings LOATHE We the People. When right-wing pundits (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al...) use terms like "HARNESS" or "ABSORB" the Tea Party Movement, what does this tell you?>>>
>>>Does it ever occur to them that Conservatives from both wings are finding their Home in our Safe Harbor and True Home which in the Center ~ Our Constitution?
That right-wingers are trying to "HARNESS" & "ABSORB" the Center shows that they have built a lucrative empire out of the 2-wing paradigm & they have no incentive or intention in ending this prison they have constructed for We the People.
We ARE waking up and realizing we are trapped in their King of the Washington Dung Pile Game.
>>>Picture totalitariansm at the top (12), anarchy at the bottom (6).
We can govern within the confines of the Constitution or we can let the parties take us out to the left or right, which is what We the People are held hostage to today.
2 "teams" fighting over their Progressive Legislative Dung Heap sitting atop Our Constitution.
Either side swinging below 3 on the right or below 9 on the left ends up heading toward anarchy ~ likewise, over 3/over 9 toward totalitarianism.>>>
>>>If we stay or CONSERVE our power close to us in the center ~ Our Constitution, we avoid all those ills.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant when they set up our system so every Individual would be Free and Protected from the disasters which stray from the center.
Conservatism is NOT "right-wing". And "right-wing" CANNOT be Conservatism.
By definition, Conservatism is dead Center ~ the Bullseye ~ Our Constitution.
"Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations."
@freatork1 When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I found 465,000 links to Jefferson and that quote. Are you dishonest or inept?
"Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations."
I don't care how many links there are to this bogus quote, it's still bogus.
Great video! Please listen to the end of this video! Rome forgot the principles of freedom that made it so powerful and it collapsed. America will collapse if we don't return to the principles that have made the U.S. the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. Responsibility for ones SELF is at the core!
The Constitution is the law from which democracy descends. It cannot be overruled by a voice vote, no matter how loud. Democracy that does not descend from law is simply mob rule.
the majority accepted the constitutional republic , so the majority still control the fate of goverment !
The majority accepted human rights with democracy = republic :D :D ! but the majority can accept human rights without goverment = anarchy , even if u have all the military equipments to stop it , u can not stop the majority ! BECAUSE THE MAJORITY IS EVERYWHERE !
I learned more from this video about our government then political science in high school. Holy Crap public education is becoming the most unfunny joke...
Ignorance is bliss....when is everyone going to wake up! "Bush had czars", "Obama does too" blah blah blah...all of them have their hands in corruption and special interests...who is willing to uphold the Constitution!? I don't care if that person is a Democrat or Republican or Independant...we keep electing these puppets who answer to the Oligarchy that really controls our Gov. Stop looking at labels and start looking at track record and character!
To flyingace............The only power that the Oval office has had (until Obama grabbed the banks, the auto industry and stuck all his czars in place) was the power to request from Congress, bills that the President wanted. The only power was to sign or veto bills. All legal power resided in the Congress, until now!!
No naivete here.....what do you call all those czars? Even the elder statesman on the left side of the aisle, Richard Byrd, has called the czars "an end run" around the Congress, and unconstitutional. But of course Obama, who should know better, doesn't give a rip about the Constitution!!
Obama is not the first president to have "czars." And the bank and auto bailouts were through congress, not the executive branch. Presidents from both parties have expanded the size of government, democrats are just more honest about it.
So you would rather vote for the Democrats because they are more honest about being tyrants? How about voting for Individual representatives who believe in freedom instead of Parties!
Yup.. You're right... most all of them have. That's why we have checks and balances governed by Laws and Constitutions. Apparently you didn't watch the video.
What do advisers have to do with tyranny? I was just objecting to anyone painting this "czar" bs as a left-right issue, because it's not. My point was it's a stupid thing to base your vote on, unless you're going to go with a 3rd party.
Steve Rattner: Made the decision to close dealerships that the Manufacturers had $0 invested in. I could continue about Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, etc. and the authority they have ussurped and decisions they have made...
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE TRUTH. if those who do not have access to the founding documents that explain the different forms of government refuse to be educated, it's their problem. You have done a great job. BTW, this makes Obama a Commisar with his Czars that answer only to him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OH shit. One minute and this bullshit is revealed: the stupid idea that the nazism wasn't far right. And, if fascism isn´t far right, what else could it be? OF COURSE: LEFT. AND THAT'S WAHY BARACK OBAMA IS FASCIST, OR IS COMMIE, OR FASCIST? OR A COMMIE? MAYBE A FASCIST MAYBE A COMMIE? AH U.S IS FUCKED UP WITH THIS FOXNEWS POLITICAL THEORY. THIS TRASH GOES TO MY FAVORITES!!!
These people need to go back to Government 101, but they have Marketing 101 down pat. Keep repeating the BS and people will eventually believe the BS to some extent. There are plenty of leaders from the past that were good at this kind of propaganda.
The terms left and right wing refer to the polical liberal and conservatives, extreme forms are comunism and facism.
Facists argue strong central government under a stong, powerful leader. They are always single party system.
Communists are similar in the single leader, though strictly speaking socialism (The principles communism are based on) calls for a rule of the "prolitariat" or the common man. However in practice, Facism and Communism are very similar.
Anarchy please.
evilfurby1 2 days ago in playlist LIBERTARIAN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
This video really opened my eyes, I understand know what the Mayan's was talking about....Words out "Freedom is Hip" Vote Ron Paul !
TheCarta2012 3 days ago
6:40 - 7:03 to the law or to the juries opinion? law has to be written, like in every european country. america does not have a true republic
diogotomediogo 1 month ago in playlist Mais vídeos de LibertyPen
the republic just replaces a king for a president. people who dont vote will have to put up with a president anyway.
diogotomediogo 1 month ago in playlist Mais vídeos de LibertyPen
republic please.
KyraKandiKid 1 month ago
My god this is awesome
Dancing88Mike 2 months ago 2
"Democracy has succeeded in bringing us the oligarchy. We are living the rule of the few now partially due to the ignorance that gave rise to the fallacy stating that democracy and republic are interchangeable terms."
-Jeremy Brooks
Check out Awareness For Ron Paul on Facebook
JB4RONPAUL1 3 months ago 2
When states cease to have rights, so goes the people's rights.
SovereignSlave1 3 months ago
Oustanding- Please make sure this video stays right here!
SovereignSlave1 3 months ago
This video is part of a larger video, almost an hour long. I lost a hard drive and I am unable to find the full video. Does anyone have a link to it?
emaleroland 4 months ago
HISTORY TEACHERS!!! Show this to your students!!
Aidsus 4 months ago
A great explanation of what a true definition of a republic is. The United States of America has been, & shall forever be declared a REPUBLIC!!!
God Bless The United States of America!
ChihuahuaboyDH 4 months ago
Yes, AMERICA is a REPUBLIC, never, ever ever EVER, a democracy!
Democracy- 2 wolf and a lamb deciding what's for lunch
Republic- 2 wolf and an armored lamb deciding what's for lunch
HJtheminer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a fabulous video. One of the best I have seen in a long time explaining our government. Good work.
Zjieon 5 months ago
Comment removed
Zjieon 5 months ago
And monarchy is NOT left, fuck this propaganda fascist "libertypen".
Imhornydadcomeinside 7 months ago
this video is completely historically inaccurate. there was no anarchist period in russia. After the Tsar was killed and the bolsheviks took power, there was a provisional government.
And when Hitler caused fighting in the streets against the communist party members, the Weimar government was in power. and for some reason it shows footage of Fidel Castro? Why the hell would it show Castro, there was no anarchy in Cuba. Piece of bullshit propaganda
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
@SecularNumanist
after the tsar was killed and BEFORE the bolsheviks took power*
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
@SecularNumanist Because they are republicans, they are stupid and have no idea that A COUNTRY CAN BE A REPUBLIC AND ALSO BE A DEMOCRACY, look at france.
A republic can also be a dictatorship, if it lacks democracy, and these republicans want to have a fucked up ancient republic like rome, and you know how much rome cared for people who didn't have money and power.
Imhornydadcomeinside 7 months ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside
plenty of libertypens videos are good. theyre not all made by the same person, theyre just taken from lots of different places.
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think you will love this video :)
watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g
Regards,
Daniel
visionvictory 8 months ago
yes my relitves raised a fine man -good ole ben
Krewcible 8 months ago
well really the polictal spectrum is a circle not a line. To say Fasiscm is left wing is RUBBISH Hitler was stauch right wing it is just a way of the vidoe trying to make Right wong values look the best. Wow im stopping watching the vidoe already just casue it is misinforming straight away
julianpav 9 months ago
@julianpav if by right wing you mean socialist, than you are right. Hitler, and Stalin agreed on just about everything, there only fight was who would control it.
RFIdigitaProductions 9 months ago
@julianpav Erm so why did Hitler have a hatred of Communism ? Thier polocies overlap yes but thier key values don and youcant argue agaisnt that
julianpav 9 months ago
@julianpav National Socialism. And you call that Right-Wing?
ChristianWarriorUSA 7 months ago
@julianpav What you're doing is showing you don't understand the political spectrum or history.
emaleroland 4 months ago
"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents"....Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Taylor
Thomas Jefferson
May 28, 1816
Monticello
joraejean 11 months ago
This has my vote as the best video on youtube. It is the best explanation that exists.
SuperGuitarman69 11 months ago 12
16 people are politicians.
ChefTactical 11 months ago
Not sure who the 15 ppl are who disliked this....all I can say is if you are a patriotic American, then WHAT did you dislike about this??
odessat 11 months ago
nice vid
kutgw
th86stone 1 year ago
It's obvious that we have an oligarchy (or at least close to one), and we need a Republic. For anyone who is worried about chaos, contemplate this statement by Zarathustra: "One must have a chaos inside oneself, to give birth to a dancing star".
I think the same is true for countries, as well as people. If their is any change, there will be an inevitable time of chaos while the change happens. But don't be afraid of it; it's a wonderful sign, in disguise, of good things to come!
eatthatmeatball 1 year ago
This video confuses anarchy with chaos. Sad.
Flexituigster 1 year ago
@Flexituigster If you believe there is a difference between chaos and anarchy, that is sad.
rigslip 1 year ago
@rigslip - Anarchy leads to chaos. dictionary says: 1) a state of society without government or law. 2) political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
That always has and always will lead to chaos.
Cash75063 1 year ago
Long live The Republic.
OhShitDidHeDie 1 year ago 22
@robmonty248 im not weak in my mind i can reason i know what is true and i know what is false i make decisions based on science math and yes religion and history and it is working for me .im not a puppet im not stupid either when i see someone on tv say something i dont take it as fact i actually search it and think about it before making a conclusion .
saint27573 1 year ago
This excerpt from "Overview of America" is one of the best videos produced by The John Birch Society.
1Bircher 1 year ago
I always thought we were a Democracy based on a Republic, which is why we vote(majority rule) but are protected by laws.
mshatswell 1 year ago
nice video but it makes a fatal flaw about democracy. It says that demo, people, and cracy, people is rule by the majority of the people which is taken immediately to be 50% of the people. Rule by the people may be taken as greater than 75% or more. Furthermore, traditional approaches hold that 50% of votes cast constitute the majority. The silent refuse to endorse any option presented for a reason AND differ radically from the views of the politically active.
landen99 1 year ago
@landen99 Democracy is a majority rule. Majority of anything, is more than 50%, not 75%. Yes, 75% is a majority but not the tipping point.
emaleroland 4 months ago
@emaleroland "Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." How that equal say is establish is open to wide interpretation, and direct suffrage by simple majority is only one way. There are many kinds of majority: Simple majority, absolutely majority, and a super majority to name a few.
landen99 4 months ago
@landen99 dude, you're high. Democracy deals with a simple majority, not a super majority like what we have in the Senate. It's pointless. Out founding fathers gave us a Republic. We know because they said so and they said they didn't want a democracy. The word democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution or the constitution of any of the 50 states, even once. If we're a democracy, can you explain that?
emaleroland 4 months ago
@emaleroland Our democracy uses a simple majority most of the time, but "rule by the people" may use other kinds of majorities, if it wishes. While we were given a republic, we have evolved through our living constitution more into a direct democracy with a president directly elected by the people (as opposed to by the electoral college, except in formality only), senators elected by the people directly (as opposed to by the states), and laws placed on the ballot by the people .
landen99 4 months ago
@landen99 a "direct" democracy - you do realize the popular vote does not win you the white house, don't you?
emaleroland 4 months ago
@emaleroland If the popular vote of each state wins each respective state, then yes it does. The views of those "representatives" elected in the electoral college do not matter because they always vote the will of the people of their state, and so the representative democracy (the republic being merely one form of democracy) is reduced to a direct democracy by state. We are only a republic when our representative aristocrats have the power to ignore their constituents.
landen99 4 months ago
@landen99 No it doesn't. And the electoral college is what picks the President, based on the popular vote but they are not bound to vote that way and have not always voted that way and it's not the popular vote. You can with the electoral college and not have the popular vote. Ask Al Bore. You're making no sense whatsoever.
emaleroland 4 months ago
@landen99 "the republic being merely one form of democracy"...what?
I challenge you to prove that "majority rule" (democracy) is a form of "rule of law" (republic).
The video depicts the perfect example of the difference; the legal right (republic) of a wanted man being protected from the harms of a mob (democracy).
You are conveniently incorrectly equating voting rights to democracy.
If anything, the Republic is giving the people a taste of democracy; not the other way around.
brw3rd 3 months ago
@landen99 "Rule by the people may be taken as greater than 75% "
Possibly. However, that would require a rule (law) to dictate that distinction. And, a governing body to enforce that rule, which is governance by law (Republic).
brw3rd 3 months ago
"The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control by Marshall Law; it is control by the psychological manipulation of consciousness through which reality is defined so that those that exist within it do not even realize that they're in prison."
Learn Quantum Physics and STOP watching this as, if you think it, your guilty of it.
Will Thy Kingdom to come = Thought becomes reality, TV injects thought, Both FEAR and LOVE create, Discontinue watching these types.
*Bringers of the Dawn.
RobMonty248 1 year ago
If ppl just knew these basic things in the video alone they would begin to smell the BS around them .
One of THE BEST videos on utube. The narrators voice is perfect for this video. Shared! Invite! Subd!
Badwolf182 1 year ago
@Badwolf182 This was very well demonstrated.
Thanks for showing me this.
havoctrend 1 year ago
best video
meg86loveya 1 year ago
So according to the spectrum at 1:00, a Muslim Fundamentalist or Christian Dominionist theocracy would be at the far left end of the spectrum, since the religiously-anointed govt. has total power?
KarlBonner1982 1 year ago
@KarlBonner1982 Exactly. Control by a religious faction that doesn't believe in true Natural Law, will put you to the left of the spectrum. Many fundamentalists will do that.
That is EXACTLY why many founders even came to America to get away from religious persecution.
However, religious group(s) that follow God's laws .. which are inalienable rights, such as individual freedom, liberty, justice, and the allowance of pursuit of happiness will not be on the left but could be center.
swimkin 1 year ago
thank you for posting this.
RoxiiL0ve 1 year ago
Total BS!
w7qho 1 year ago
@w7qho Total BS? No doubt a leftist. The good news is, this video is being watched by moderate to left moderate and they have the where with all to admit in light of this knowledge they receive, they rethink their entire political views. This video wil save our country. Truth and facts are the death to the leftist statist. Enjoy your last days. Unless you change soon, America will leave you behind and you'll be left with your agenda. And hated and be looked upon as a dangerous threat 2 liberty
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Oligarchies aren't exclusive to just political government, but also big business.
VD3Z 1 year ago
I like how heroic music played during the description of the republic, but during the description of the democracy, a mob takes down the American flag.
heytoguy 1 year ago
@heytoguy I picked up on that too. That's a disgraceful way to treat the moral grounds for gang rape.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
I consider myself a Conservative/Libertarian. But mostly an American. I believe it is time to strip away the damage that has been caused since the 30's. Reverse course completely and return the power to the people. Thomas Jefferson along with the founding fathers authored the greatest document ever written by man. And we have a government that doesn't even follow it! It is time to look for new leaders.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Is Plato talking about us Americans in The Republic discussing a Republican form of representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson expressed his fears that democracy is quite simply mob rule by 51% against 49% of the population.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@DavidAB44
I unfortunately do not have ready access to the book you have suggested.
However, I will say this: In my understanding of it (from a year old memory of U.S. history) 'liberals' had more expansionary policies then 'conservatives'. Though i am willing to admit that saying Alice is a Conservative and Bob is a Liberal is speaking in generalizations, Every person has ideas regarding different problems.
P.S. You don't have to keep resending the message three times. I got it the first time.
flyingace1234 1 year ago
Right on Michelle! She's better than 99% of them but better than every O appointee hands down
itbescotty 1 year ago
It doesn't matter about the party, it is who that person is, that we do elect to be there! They can be from any party, but if the Forefathers does not mean or the Constitution, anything to them! We will go the same way we are! Freedom is not Free, so we must give up time to study who we put in there!
hornet1st 1 year ago
What a ridiculous mischaracterization of "Anarchy." Anarchism is not for "no law," it's for *private* law, not *monopolized* law. It's not that you don't hire people to protect you, it's that those who you can hire *compete* for your business, not *tax*. What makes gov't so bad is the absence of a market. This fantasy of a monopoly gov't which serves the people is just that
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Anarchy is the absence of any type of order. Private law, or hiring others to do your bidding (followers), would be a monarchy, as you would be the "king". Anarchy is not sustainable. No matter how much your professors tell you it is a viable form of government or agent of change.
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata
You're fooling no intellectual worth his salt by trying to define Anarchism as an absence of order. The most ordered systems we know of come from markets which are entirely spontaneous. The weakest orders come from bureacracies and gov't. Monarchy is an autoarchic form of gov't. Anarchy is an absence of gov't, but NOT necessarily order. What's more, your assumption that I'm spoonfed my ideology by professors only denigrates you. If anyting, professors today are brainwashing
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
I didn't realize that you are an intellectual. I am not trying to fool you or anybody. I am not an intellectual, I believe in common sense. Markets/ trade all exist on rules. You give me that & I'll give you this. I need that so I'm willing to give you this. That doesn't sound spontaneous. That sounds like one party has a current or future need & wants to fulfill that need by barter. If you negate your part of the bargain, you will have no future trading partners.
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata
I'm not trying to be rude, but paragraphs like this are just elementary and don't in anyway cut to the heart of the matter. When we say spontaneous, we mean there were no overmasters at the top commanding people to do specific things. Prices themselves are spontaneously formed. No one really knows where they're headed exactly, just where they are and where they've been. The market produces these functions by itself. This is what ancaps and chaos theorists call spontaneous order.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@grimmata
Barter is a local economy and in now way represents the full nature of the market.
Watch this video: /watch?v=FOFdvPyp1rI
I can provide more formal videos later. An intellectual is not synonymous with Progressive; indeed, so-called "progressives," if anything, are anti-intellectual and REgressive! What's more, when I speak of anarchist literature, I'm talking about Murray Rothbard, Hoppe, or Walter Block, not your local UCLA socialist professor. Although there are such
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@grimmata
things as ANARCHO-socialists. I'm referring predominantly to anarcho-CAPITALISTS. We believe in a total market society--every damn thing privatized.
You got me all wrong. I'll be one of the most productive citizens of this species--I just want myself and others to keep more, if not all, of the fruits of our labor.
You got a long way to go on the path. Keep reading, thinking, and challenging yourself.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
How do you have order without any form of law or a government to enforce the laws?
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata
students to be pro-gov't socialists. I'm willing to bet the house you have almost zero exposure to anarchist literature. Trying to throw your weight around in conversations like this without any relevant knowledge is just sad.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Good thing you didn't wager. I grew up next to Berkeley, so I've had to listen to all of the bile & spittle spewing from the masses of foul-mouthed "progressives" that don't want to get up & go to work everyday (or any day).
grimmata 1 year ago
If we are not careful we may end up being the United Empire of America- a worse power than the Roman Empire.
NickJeromana 1 year ago
We must restore the Republic or we will remain a plutocracy disguised as a Democracy. In order to preserve a Republic... there needs to be enough people with weapons and enough people with access to military hardware willing to fight to restore the Republic... because the demagogues and the unwashed masses of worthless turds on the dole will not give up their cash cow without an actual physical fight. They have laid claim to everyone else's property and will lie, riot and murder to keep it.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
Redneck political science.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk How? Are you one of those who believe we are a democracy? We have never been a democracy.
Bluto2973 1 year ago
@Bluto2973 There's always a difference between theory and practice. Practically all states are either plutocracies or oligarchies. Democracy, republic, that's all nonsense. All ideologies can be twisted to fit any system.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk I agree that all ideologies can be twisted to "fit any system." However, people need to understand our system of government. Our Founders were fully aware of the pitfalls of democracy. That's why they gave us a republic. That's why it takes a supermajority -- instead of, let's say, a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate -- to end debate on a bill. It's why you don't even need to win the popular vote to become president. Al Gore can explain that to you.
Bluto2973 1 year ago
@Bluto2973 A republican system is by definition an aristocratic system. Today's system is aristocratic under the disguise of a democracy. The American constitution was at the time of it's making the manifest of a new aristocracy in reply to the feudal system which was still prevalent in Europe, so it's profound meaning is no different. It's all about the nature of the elites: their whims set the topics for debates and the course of action in a society. Right now the elites are rotten to the core
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk
How is a government by the people aristocratic? Where are you going for your definition of a republic?
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata Aristocracy = rule of the competent. By definition, and according to this video, a republic means the rule of law. In a republic, society is administered by the lawmakers to benefit the people, not the people themselves.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk
So you're talking about an "aristocracy of the competent" as opposed to the ruling class/ elites/ nobility? I think republic is a little vague, but our system has us "ruled" by representatives elected from the people.
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata The original meaning of the word is rule of the competent. It became denatured when competence was associated with heredity or family ties. Those elected representatives are part of an oligarchy. Elections are just a PR exercise.
buzzhawk 1 year ago 2
@Bluto2973 Also, today we're dealing with an "uniformisation" of political issues. Certain views are no longer accepted. The current ideological trends are advantageous to certain people, but if they weren't, they'd be discarded in a second. The American constitution was at it's time a reflection of new interests, however there are some age-old truths to which the founding fathers of the American republic were myopic to and were the basis of the ancient system it wanted to emulate.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@Bluto2973 That ancient system was the Roman republic. It didn't have any constitution, it was ruled by a tradition which incorporated these notions: a natural aristocracy, rule by the qualified, the reality of ethnicity. In time, that tradition was forgotten and autocracy was instaured. It all happened because the original concept of citizenship was enlarged and the entire concept lost it's meaning. The same is happening today all over the West.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk
So, if the Roman republic didn't have any rules, what were the 12 tables? Wouldn't that be their constitution? Didn't they have a system of elected representatives? Didn't they overthrow the rule of kings/ aristocracy? Since they were all Romans, I don't think that "the reality of ethnicity" had too much to do with who could be elected. The republic fell due to internal conflict, not because of a forgotten tradition. The winners of the civil wars each declared themselves sole ruler.
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata They didn't have a written constitution, and the 12 tables formed the foundation for Roman law, which was maintained under both the Roman republic and later empire, which was monarchical. So regardless of any form of government, they didn't form the central document which dictates the core values of a state, like a constitution. And I didn't say they didn't have any rules on running a government, they had, but they weren't codified in a constitution.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@grimmata And their core republican system was aristocratic. They did have elected assemblies, but they didn't hold any real power. That power was in the hands of the senate, which was an aristocratic body. And ethnicity was very important to the Romans, considering that for example that all their kings were Etruscan. "They were all Romans" like you said, but being "Roman" originally meant belonging to the Roman ethnicity, unless you didn't read much history and you generalize like that.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@grimmata And the republic came down by internal strife caused by an expanding state, which added more and more ethnic groups. To run such a diverse state they needed to have a more authoritarian system, and the republic became obsolete. It's a cycle of history with which you're not familiar.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@Bluto2973 And that's nothing but the logical conclusion of the American constitution. We don't need to go back to that, only to a certain forgotten tradition, and today that's impossible.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
@buzzhawk I've read all of your reponses -- and you make some very interesting points. What distinguishes us from earlier republics is our Constitution. I would argue that we do need to go back to that. Provide for our common defense and ensure individual liberty are the basic tenants of our federal government -- or the way it should be. Over the last 100 years or so we've moved gradually toward the nanny state. The more gov't gets involved the worse we are. They've bankrupted the country.
Bluto2973 1 year ago
@buzzhawk
How can you equate fascism or tyranny or monarchy with any type or Democracy or representative government?
grimmata 1 year ago
That were very uneducated reasons for rejecting anarchism. I'm not impressed at all.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago
I don't know what to believe anymore... I'm confused.
TheGuitarProphet 1 year ago
@TheGuitarProphet Believe in freedom and the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Search YouTube for "Milton Friedman" and look at all of his stuff. You'll figure it out.
seawabbit 1 year ago
please see my video on Nancy Pelosi THX
GeneTaylorCongress 1 year ago
"The rule of the people--majority rule."
"The people" is the collective BODY of the people, not a bunch of individuals rounding up a gunman and voting amongst themselves whether or not to hang him.
"The People vs. Joe Gunman."
freatork1 1 year ago
@freatork1
49 individuals vote for a hanging, Joe Gunman goes free. 51 individuals vote for a hanging, Joe better have his will squared away. 50 individuals vote for a hanging, hung jury & they have a new vote or Joe goes free. So a bunch of individuals rounding up a gunman is the majority rule if Joe doesn't have a set of laws to protect his individual freedom.
grimmata 1 year ago
@grimmata
There is a reason why our laws are more likely to let a guilty man go free. Because our Founders did believe there would be a judgement day in the afterlife. And anyone they let free would be judged by God. They believed in Divine Providence. They woud rather let a guilty man go free than have an innocent man die for that very reason.
swimkin 1 year ago
there are 2 types of republic -
democratic, which i believe the US is
& undemocratic like China & the former Soviet republics
as for democracy, as we know it today -
the ol slave owning geezers of the 18th century couldn't comprehend it
why treat every word that they uttered as if the ol geezers were infalible ?
don't be a slave to any idealogy !
mangaire1 1 year ago
@ mangaire1, China and the Soviet republics were never republics. They are oligarcies. Big difference!
LadyD2r 1 year ago 2
@LadyD2r
well - i don't know that they were " never republics"
but they were certainly never democratic republics
"oligarcies" ? - a bit of a mouthful
dictatorships is what i'd call them
but - i don't understand the people who say that the US is not a democratic republic
am i missing something ??
mangaire1 1 year ago
@mangaire1
You should study the Constitution mangaire, as America was founded as a Representative Republic. If you are actually interested you should also read Essay #10 of the Federalist Papers. The Founders were very clear about not being a democracy.
TheIndoctriNATION 1 year ago
@TheIndoctriNATION
i reckon the US is just about as democratic as any other western democracy
i dont understand why you should have a problem with that
democracy, as we know it today, did not exist in the 18th century - so no point in quoting some 18th century ol geezer on the subject
only rich property owners had votes back then
wake up ol man - it's 2010
the blacks of the US are not only free
but a black man is YOUR President
mangaire1 1 year ago
@mangaire1
Who cares what you reckon you mental midget. Take your racist whitey hating rants and use them on your friends. They may be impressed and think you are a real big shot, no one in America will! The fake president is also half white, dumbass!
TheIndoctriNATION 1 year ago
@TheIndoctriNATION
your comment indicates that you're an angry ol geezer
so you don't like YOUR democratically elected President Barrack Hussein Obama ?
no surprise there bet some of the old slave-owning founding father ol geezers wouldnt have liked him either
no surprise either that you don't like democray
but you must remember - your Pres is -
Barrack Hussein Obama
take an anger management course
second thoughts don't
youre too funny as you are
mangaire1 1 year ago
Thanks for making this video. Excellent.
Also, Most People do Not realize that Increasing Taxes Actually causes Tax Revenues to Decline. Google 'Laffer Curve" to see Why.
3martijns 1 year ago
BOTH parties are extra-Constitutional or they govern OUTSIDE Our Constitution. The only thing that differs are their respective agendas right or left.
One can claim to be "closer" to the center, but it is still Progressive as long as it illegitimately governs outside Our Constitution.
BOTH Progressive wings LOATHE We the People. When right-wing pundits (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al...) use terms like "HARNESS" or "ABSORB" the Tea Party Movement, what does this tell you?>>>
auroraslaugh 1 year ago
>>>Does it ever occur to them that Conservatives from both wings are finding their Home in our Safe Harbor and True Home which in the Center ~ Our Constitution?
That right-wingers are trying to "HARNESS" & "ABSORB" the Center shows that they have built a lucrative empire out of the 2-wing paradigm & they have no incentive or intention in ending this prison they have constructed for We the People.
We ARE waking up and realizing we are trapped in their King of the Washington Dung Pile Game.
auroraslaugh 1 year ago
I appreciate the information here but this one/two dimensional conceptualization is also inherently flawed.
Try looking at it this way. Think of a circle, a clock face, or a sphere.
The Constitution is dead center ~ the Bullseye. >>>
auroraslaugh 1 year ago
>>>Picture totalitariansm at the top (12), anarchy at the bottom (6).
We can govern within the confines of the Constitution or we can let the parties take us out to the left or right, which is what We the People are held hostage to today.
2 "teams" fighting over their Progressive Legislative Dung Heap sitting atop Our Constitution.
Either side swinging below 3 on the right or below 9 on the left ends up heading toward anarchy ~ likewise, over 3/over 9 toward totalitarianism.>>>
auroraslaugh 1 year ago
>>>If we stay or CONSERVE our power close to us in the center ~ Our Constitution, we avoid all those ills.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant when they set up our system so every Individual would be Free and Protected from the disasters which stray from the center.
Conservatism is NOT "right-wing". And "right-wing" CANNOT be Conservatism.
By definition, Conservatism is dead Center ~ the Bullseye ~ Our Constitution.
THAT is where we belong as a Nation.
auroraslaugh 1 year ago
1. worth seeing again and again.
2. if you find fault with this presentation: post it here for discussion.
3. pass this to your children and see that they too understand the critical difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
mayorbelhaven 1 year ago
The 1 Dollar Revolution
TapDance4Fun 1 year ago
I remember hearing one thing, I am not sure who said it. "The government should be afraid of it's people. Not the other way around."
questionsamson 1 year ago 7
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
LibertyPen 1 year ago 17
@LibertyPen Thanks!
questionsamson 1 year ago
Great video.
CasperCee 1 year ago
From the Thomas Jefferson Enclyclopedia:
"Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations."
freatork1 1 year ago
@freatork1 When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I found 465,000 links to Jefferson and that quote. Are you dishonest or inept?
emaleroland 4 months ago
@emaleroland "when the government fears the people" there is mobocracy, the rule of the mob, where all people fear each other. .. not liberty.
landen99 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emaleroland
From the Thomas Jefferson Enclyclopedia:
"Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations."
I don't care how many links there are to this bogus quote, it's still bogus.
freatork1 1 month ago
@LibertyPen Brilliant!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@LibertyPen
Hey, your explanation of anarchy is wrong. It does not use violence to get its means.
Emil246 1 year ago
@questionsamson "The people should not fear their government but the government fear the people" (V for Vendetta)
ckln88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@questionsamson "The people should not fear their government but the government fear the people" (V for Vendetta)
ckln88 1 year ago
Great video!
ucjb2 1 year ago
Great video! Please listen to the end of this video! Rome forgot the principles of freedom that made it so powerful and it collapsed. America will collapse if we don't return to the principles that have made the U.S. the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. Responsibility for ones SELF is at the core!
ProudConservative2 2 years ago
democracy and republic overlap. America is a representative democracy which is a type of republic
dmanyanksfan 2 years ago
The Constitution is the law from which democracy descends. It cannot be overruled by a voice vote, no matter how loud. Democracy that does not descend from law is simply mob rule.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 3
the majority accepted the constitutional republic , so the majority still control the fate of goverment !
The majority accepted human rights with democracy = republic :D :D ! but the majority can accept human rights without goverment = anarchy , even if u have all the military equipments to stop it , u can not stop the majority ! BECAUSE THE MAJORITY IS EVERYWHERE !
Cran1988 2 years ago
this is the same presentation Glenn Beck showed on his tv program.
altops 2 years ago
Fantastic
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago 4
I learned more from this video about our government then political science in high school. Holy Crap public education is becoming the most unfunny joke...
Dinhel 2 years ago 14
Comment removed
xyberfunk 1 year ago
@Dinhel You must be a special ed student.
buzzhawk 1 year ago
Ignorance is bliss....when is everyone going to wake up! "Bush had czars", "Obama does too" blah blah blah...all of them have their hands in corruption and special interests...who is willing to uphold the Constitution!? I don't care if that person is a Democrat or Republican or Independant...we keep electing these puppets who answer to the Oligarchy that really controls our Gov. Stop looking at labels and start looking at track record and character!
docandbilly 2 years ago 4
Both parties have failed us and it is time WE THE PEOPLE take back our country and toss the career politicians out of office
NHMntnHIGH 2 years ago 3
Democracy does not mean that laws do not exist and that everything is suddenly decided right there on the spot, this is insane.
Pincoat 2 years ago
Leftists despise the founding fathers.
stealth423 2 years ago 4
Absolutly correct!!! And their killing themselves trying to tear down the fire-walls put in place in our constitution!
villain68 2 years ago 4
....Good old Chairman Obama should see this video, but, he STILL would not GET IT!!!
jettbugg 2 years ago
It's a form of democracy, democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive....END
fornss 2 years ago
It is democracy CONFINED by law.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
Thanks for posting!
vanmail7 2 years ago
Viva Republica!
Viva Roma!!!
gfrabizi 2 years ago
To flyingace............The only power that the Oval office has had (until Obama grabbed the banks, the auto industry and stuck all his czars in place) was the power to request from Congress, bills that the President wanted. The only power was to sign or veto bills. All legal power resided in the Congress, until now!!
ORDingbat 2 years ago 4
If you think Obama is the first president to expand executive power, you are a little naive, I'm sorry to say.
caelestis356 2 years ago
No naivete here.....what do you call all those czars? Even the elder statesman on the left side of the aisle, Richard Byrd, has called the czars "an end run" around the Congress, and unconstitutional. But of course Obama, who should know better, doesn't give a rip about the Constitution!!
ORDingbat 2 years ago 3
Obama is not the first president to have "czars." And the bank and auto bailouts were through congress, not the executive branch. Presidents from both parties have expanded the size of government, democrats are just more honest about it.
caelestis356 2 years ago
So you would rather vote for the Democrats because they are more honest about being tyrants? How about voting for Individual representatives who believe in freedom instead of Parties!
tshaifley 2 years ago 5
thats is exactly what we need to do. time to tell them all the "party" is over
NHMntnHIGH 2 years ago 3
Bush has czars you idiot
Pincoat 2 years ago
And Bush was a leftist... Are you contending that it is fine for Obama to destroy our freedoms as long as Bush did it first?
tshaifley 2 years ago 5
Yup.. You're right... most all of them have. That's why we have checks and balances governed by Laws and Constitutions. Apparently you didn't watch the video.
tshaifley 2 years ago 2
What do advisers have to do with tyranny? I was just objecting to anyone painting this "czar" bs as a left-right issue, because it's not. My point was it's a stupid thing to base your vote on, unless you're going to go with a 3rd party.
caelestis356 2 years ago
Steve Rattner: Made the decision to close dealerships that the Manufacturers had $0 invested in. I could continue about Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, etc. and the authority they have ussurped and decisions they have made...
tshaifley 2 years ago 2
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE TRUTH. if those who do not have access to the founding documents that explain the different forms of government refuse to be educated, it's their problem. You have done a great job. BTW, this makes Obama a Commisar with his Czars that answer only to him.
angeljenny55 2 years ago 2
Excellent explanation of types of government.
MX109MX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OH shit. One minute and this bullshit is revealed: the stupid idea that the nazism wasn't far right. And, if fascism isn´t far right, what else could it be? OF COURSE: LEFT. AND THAT'S WAHY BARACK OBAMA IS FASCIST, OR IS COMMIE, OR FASCIST? OR A COMMIE? MAYBE A FASCIST MAYBE A COMMIE? AH U.S IS FUCKED UP WITH THIS FOXNEWS POLITICAL THEORY. THIS TRASH GOES TO MY FAVORITES!!!
PD THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE RACISTS BASTARDS
magomezga 2 years ago
These people need to go back to Government 101, but they have Marketing 101 down pat. Keep repeating the BS and people will eventually believe the BS to some extent. There are plenty of leaders from the past that were good at this kind of propaganda.
TheRtPt 2 years ago
Can you refute any of this? Can you define what your version of "right wing" is?
Your mindless partisan lemming like blather isn't very convincing.
espada9 2 years ago
Once again, I must point out that a republic and a democracy are two "flavors" of the same form of Government.
a "Limited Democracy" or republic is one where voters elect representatives to act on their behalf
flyingace1234 2 years ago
Bwah, ha, ha, ha... this video is a joke. It reminds me of an outdated film strip from grade school. This is simplistic tripe...
TheRtPt 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NOTHING MORE THAN FUCKING JOKE
magomezga 2 years ago
The terms left and right wing refer to the polical liberal and conservatives, extreme forms are comunism and facism.
Facists argue strong central government under a stong, powerful leader. They are always single party system.
Communists are similar in the single leader, though strictly speaking socialism (The principles communism are based on) calls for a rule of the "prolitariat" or the common man. However in practice, Facism and Communism are very similar.
flyingace1234 2 years ago
Obama is a social fascist.
mizentropy 2 years ago