“Freedom does not always win. This is one of the bitterest lessons of history.”

Great quote. What a great LIBERAL historian - his famous quote always reminds me that we will never learn the lessons of our forefathers - when asked if history is cyclical he replied "it was not history which repeats itself but historians who repeat each other" Like us mortals who never learn but continue to ravage our bed along with our bedfellows.

Our Republic is losing its freedom to democracy right now! Tyranny is sweeping our federal government. Time is ripe for another revolution.

Our republic is not losing its freedom to democracy. Our republic is a representative democracy, losing its freedom to incursions into tyranny by various factions in its ruling bodies, financed by ultracapitalists, who are the same people we might call ultracommunists.

Our Republic was based upon the idea/principle (among many), that “Governments are the servants, not the masters of the people” (Thomas Jefferson) and that each individual of a Republic is the "Caesar" (as it were) to that Republic. Simple "representative democracies" are just as easily destroyed as full fledged democracies. It is the simple principle behind what a democracy IS that makes it so dangerous! In our Republic, the people are the source of the power, with individually assumed unalienable rights. In ANY form of democracy, there are no "unalienable rights" - the only "right" you have in a democracy is what the majority says you have - in so doing, all "rights", in a democracy, are de facto! It is not the de jure place of the specific servant (government), among many of the Republic's sovereigns (We the People) to bind its master. The Constitution (a contract between "We the People", not "We the People and you, the Government") is finite based on certain unchanging principles, not a living document, emphatic in limiting the powers of We The People's constituents, NOT LIMITING We The People. In a Republic, you cannot delegate to your representative a 'right' that you don't have within yourself to enforce - however, in a "representative democracy", rights can be assumed (or usurped) by government by a mere majority vote, regardless of what sovereign individual they trample over. A “democracy” does not hold a monopoly on “voting” or “the voice of the people” – There is also “voting” and “the voice of the people” in a simple Republic – not a “democratic republic” or a “representative democracy” – just a simple Republic… Try looking it up at dictionary.com – A Republican form of government is ruled by the voice of the people with absolutely no reference to democracy. They are two entirely different forms of government. Yes, our Republic IS being destroyed by Democracy.

Sounds so good that one almost forgets how wrong you are, since the form of democracy we have is a representative democracy.

Also, by definition, full-fledged democracies have representative government too - that is not a monopolized idea of Republics either - So, in reality, a "representative democracy" really has NOTHING to do with a Republic whatsoever.

I guess then that we do not have a republic, after all.

After having reviewed the various definitions available in my American College Dictionary, I find that we live in a democrratic society, with a government that is republican and democratic in nature. All your blah blah cannot change that.

And one of the bitterest lessons is to learn that you are not free. Logan is right in his definition of a Republic -- which appear in several parts of the Constitution -- the word democracy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. But I have to agree with Anonymous, 'we don't have a republic after all,' no matter what the Constitution says.

lol, Okay dude, you go with that. Just thought you might be interested in the "blah blah" of the founding fathers. "[We] intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism." Fisher Ames "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Samuel Adams "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practiciable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Alexander Hamilton "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths." James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10 "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fire the building, and perishes." Fisher Ames There are several more references and quotes to be given, but I don't want to waste my time. I find it interesting that "democracy" appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution OR the Declaration of Independence - however, Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution says that a "Republican form of government" is "guaranteed" (in fact, this is the only "guarantee" in either documents). When I pledge alligience to the flag, I don't do it to the "democratic Republic" or "respresentative democracy" for which it stands... but to the "Republic" for which it stands... But hey, I'm sure your American College Dictionary has built, founded, and fought for a Nation too and knows what it takes to keep it strong and free... so yeah, you go with that.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence pose no threat to our present form of government...

I too, agree with Logan. There's not much more to add. If we don't, in practice, have the republic originally envisioned, it may be due to the fact that 'interest group'/corporate wealth and power has corrupted our legislators and the executive branch to a degree not anticipated by the framers. It's these two branches and their 'interest group'/corporate 'supporters' which are now on the warpath to 'reign in' the power of the judiciary. Smart move! Let's just eliminate the last impediment to perfect corruption.

Why cannot you just read the dictionary? I did, when you told me too, and found that you are tripping over your own brain.

This dictionary/reference checking thing may be headed for some standing - LOL. Of course, there's that 'reading and comprehension' speedbump ... LMFAO

Most Christian socialists do not even know they are socialists. I think it is because they think they have all the answers and consider it their divine mission (and duty) to force everyone else to believe as they do. Same as it ever was... I am sure Rosenthal has a good heart -- he just lacks understanding -- and probably is a bit too trusting of politicians and preachers. He obviously got a good 'progressive' education -- he believes everything he has been told. It is not enough to have a dictionary and an internet connection -- what is also necessary is a desire to know the truth -- and a willingness to hold long-held beliefs up to the light of day. But without skeptism and discernment, the common man is easily led to his enslavement.

Anonymous, I don't know how to put it any more plainly. It's impossible to reason with ignorance, but I'll try it one more time - You cannot rely on learning the truth of the foundations of our country by reading or trying to conceptualize the facts of history from modern-day sources alone (such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, etc.). Truth and history is re-written through time and definitions are changed multiple times, often within a single generation. The truth is plainly manifest when reading that the founding fathers hated democracies, of any form, and did everything they could to keep us from being one. George Washington, the man "who would not be king", was known for saying that he would rather have a monarchy in America than any form of democracy. Now, that being said, this does not mean that we have not left a Republican form of government for a democracy - for, truthfully, such is the case. Your dictionary very well might say that we're a democracy (or a "representative democracy"), I have no doubt - I'll even go so far as to agree with it (sadly, that might be where we've ended up) - just a few days ago, while at Boarders bookstore, I looked up in a world encyclopedia from Europe to see what form of government it listed the United States as having - a "Socialistic Democracy" was listed. Is this right? Perhaps. Does it mean this is the form of government the founding fathers wanted? No, it has no bearing on it whatsoever. Democracies and Republics cannot exist at the same time - democracies are the Achilles Heal of republics. As I said before, both democracies and republics can vote and be governed by the "voice of the people, and have representative government - these are not ideas that are monopolized by one system of government in particular. In a Republic, law is absolute and exists independent of government as "natural" law - the people are born naturally inherit, individually, with unalienable rights. These rights are theirs regardless of government. The Declaration of Independence talks about the "laws of nature and of nature's God" - these laws, which are physically eternal, existed before man and government ever got around to defining them - they exist regardless of government or the majority. In a Republic, the majority cannot overstep and infringe upon the rights of even a single man, this is the blessing of a Republic. In a democracy, however, there are no "natural laws" - "law" in a democracy, representative or otherwise, is relative and according to the whim of the established majority. There is no sovereignty in a democracy because there are no inherit rights - The only rights you have are what the majority SAYS you have. In a democracy, every person would vote on what the "law" is (remember in a republic, law exists independent of definition, man, or government- as John Adams said, "Man cannot MAKE law... only define it") - in a representative democracy the representatives would vote be the ones voting. Law in a democracy is de facto (opposite of de jure) - which means that it exists but with no substance backing it other than what can be enforced. A Republic means more than mere representation and a democracy is more than mere numbers. When asked what form of government we had, a republic or a monarchy, after the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin quickly quipped, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Republics, truly, enable the highest protection of inalienable rights, produce the most freedom, and are the most difficult to maintain. Sadly, freedom is never free, nor does it always win. Our republic HAS given way to democracy - Machiavelli's words have proven true once again.

Rosenthal is not a thing that Archer can comprehend. Christian doctrine promoted the type of compassionate assistance to the truly needy (almost 2,000 years ago) that socialists recently claimed as their own invention. The difference is that socialists want the rich t support the "poor", while Christian doctrine plainly states that whoever is able to work, but who refuses to work, should not eat. Christian doctrine promotes supporting principally the elder widows and younger orphans, who cannot fend for themselves, and for those who are otherwise unable to work. Whoever claims to be a "Christian Socialist" is making an absurd statement, since Marx qas atheist and promoted atheism and the dethroning of God. You really cannot be a socialist and a Christian. Rosenthal trusts politicians, preachers, and Internet pundits as far as he can throw them.

I really don't know what we have, except that I am sure that it is far from adequate. Youy can argue about what to call it. I prefer to observe its advantages and faults. It is arguably the best system in the world, of those available at this time. But it also sucks.

Like I said, most Christian socialists do not even know they are socialists -- of course they do not call themselves 'Christian Socialists' -- after the Nazis did it, it kind of gave it a bad name. They are ignorant of what a Republican government is altogether. There is nothing wrong with charity -- but did you ever wonder why the Framers didn't identify charity as a 'right'? I do not oppose the compassion of Christians (or Buddhists, Hindus and atheists) -- I oppose the legislating of entitlements -- there is no end to them. Every political debate is then merely about where this money will be spent. The government is the WORST abuser of the Treasury -- it is high time we took the credit cards out of their hands -- if citizens ran their finaces like the government ran theirs, we'd all be bankrupt. (So I assume that 'Anonymous' here is in fact David Rosenthal -- yes?)

Archer: You have finally convinced me that you have no desire or intention to attempt a rational dialog. You win. I leave you to your ignorance. Good luck out there.

LOL -- I win? Yeah for me! There may be hope for you yet, David. I was hoping however that you would explain "Christian doctrine plainly states that whoever is able to work, but who refuses to work, should not eat." I do not remember reading that in the Bible (Leviticus?) Who is telling the guy to work? How do you prevent someone from eating? You're just making stuff up now.

Whatever you say. Of course, if you really wanted to know, you could go to a Bible website and have the answer in no time. If you prefer to believe I am making it up, keep on believing.

Read the Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 3, verses 10-12. Also see the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 4, verse 11. Then you will see that I was not making it up. And?

Logan; "In a Republic, law is absolute and exists independent of government as "natural" law - the people are born naturally inherit, individually, with unalienable rights. These rights are theirs regardless of government." I have one word - ROT! That's why the laws of different republics differ and why the BOUNDS of our law are spelled out in our Constitution. The application of this sort of idea IN POLITICS wasn't even on the horizon of human awareness until the time of the Magna Charta and afterwards during the 'Age of Enlightenment' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment). The idea of 'Natural Law' is a movable feast referred to in the Bible. EVERY promotion of the idea of 'Natural Law' I've ever come across has ultimately returned to Biblical scripture for its 'logical support'. I recently read that GW doesn't want to 'violate a law of nature'. Hello-o, you CAN'T violate a 'law of nature'. That's WHY it's a 'law of nature'. It defies violation. Alchemists have tried and are still trying. No dice! You CAN however, violate a 'law of man'. It's made up - without substance - valid ONLY by virtue of the agreement of its subjects. RE: "laws of nature and of nature's God" and the assertion that " - these laws, which are physically eternal, existed before man and government ever got around to defining them - they exist regardless of government or the majority." Clearly there appear to be 'laws' (it's a shame we only have one word for two different ideas) or 'properties' of physics (Newtonian mechanics in the 'macro' world and quantum mechanics in the sub-atomic world) and chemistry which defy violation. These are the 'laws' I would refer to as 'natural'. These 'laws' are, however, not the 'laws' we appear to be talking about here. We seem to gleefully conflate the two ideas as if they were one. They're not. They're separate and distinct. So - Uh, don't look now but your parrot instinct is showing. Nature's God? Is that the one who protects nature or is it the one that punishes nature for not holding up to the onslaught of mankind? I suggest further reading outside of religion oriented materials and the subsequent wrestling with the resolution of the attendant dissonance. You've clearly begun.

It would be handy if an assertion from the Bible were attended by the chapter, verse, and text, if possible. There's a site where you can read and search both the KJV and the RSV of the Bible: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html - or - http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Terry: Maybe you missed it above: Read the Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 3, verses 10-12. Also see the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 4, verse 11. Then you will see that I was not making it up.

E. Archer; You can also get handy tips as to the proper way to sell your daughter in the Bible. - Exodus 21:7 - "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." - KJV || So don't let her out with the 'dudes' when you sell her. See how easy that is?

Do I detect a sense of humor? - LOL

David, don't make me work to prove your point. This is a quote site -- the least you can do is provide the quote and not make everyone else go find it. I have provided direct quotes and links to the sources to back up my arguments, feel free to do the same. Furthermore, there is a BIG difference between Christian and Pauline ideologies.

Whatever you say. I am not in the business of convincing people to believe what they do not wish to believe. It is a simple issue: It is in the Christian scriptures. It is accepted by professing Christians as scriptural. You do with it what you like.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 (New International Version) (10) For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (11) We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. (12) Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20thes%203:10-12&version=31 OK. Now you do not have to "work." If you want to see the other translations, or read it in the original languages, work. If you want to argue about the meaning, argue with someone else. If you want to argue in favor of a crucial difference between Christian and Pauline doctrine, I am not interested. Where I have been, quite a few places, people do not differentiate in that way. You go on, though, if it makes you happy.

The good book also said that you shall be stoned to death for wearing linen and cotton together - US Democracy is a joke - how can it not be when the US denies full representation, California with over 30 million having the same number of Senators as the smallest state. The US is winner take all...

Yes, Robert, democracy is a joke in America -- because we are not a democracy. The original intent of a Republican form of government is the distributed power of county, state, and federal governments --each with their own jurisdictions. The problem is NOT that we are not a democracy -- the problem is that the federal government has seized the jurisdictions of the States -- all are federal areas now since all States are bankrupt to the Federal Reserve -- the entire nation is in receivership and the government is operating under de facto power on behalf of its foreign creditors. And the same thing is being attempted now in forming a world government.

David, thanks for the cite of Paul. You can keep Paul, I prefer the words of Jesus -- which are nothing like Paul's. The last is first and the first is last. It is the context of Paul's quote that rubs me wrong. Look, if a man works, he can eat. But somehow in Paul's situation, people are being 'fed' (by someone) who are not working -- why are they being fed at all? This is welfare again -- and yes, those on welfare should work or not get 'fed'. But why does Paul need to arrange work and meals for everyone? It is not hard to see how many Christians have a 'welfare' mindset -- not necessarily a compassionate and charitable mindset, but a mindset that people need to be saved from themselves. Is this compassion or arrogance? History tells us it is mostly about Power and Control.

Toward the early believers, most of who were Jews, until the baptism of Cornelius and family, their was a good deal of discrimination. After all, the non-believing Jews often saw them as heretics. In some places, such as Jerusalem, the situation was very difficult for the believers. They pooled their resources to survive and generally helped each other out. It was a practical necessity of the time.

Religious communes can be very beneficial -- but only when participation is voluntary. That is the crux of the argument against 'communal' legislation.

Oh Lord, I understand you frown on those who do work on the sabbath: Exodus 31:15 - Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. - - I have a question about that. The next time I see my neighbor mowing his lawn on a Saturday, must I kill him myself or may I just hire someone to do the untidy deed for me so long as I don't have it done on a Saturday?

What? That's Sunday then is it? I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for answering.

You are welcome.

I'm not sure what freedom has to do with winning. Some individuals don't want anything to do with freedom (such as the left / right patrons of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land). There have been some GREAT comments here, such as by Logan and Archer - others also, but does that mean freedom wins or what ?

And tyranny never lasts...the NWO Cabal is in for a surprise. We the people are unlikely to let them fulfill their goals.

Freedom is subjective so how can it win or lose... if you don't pay your taxes you are thrown into debtors prison. If you don't follow the sheeple you become an outcast.. If you don't bow down to the security forces you are beaten or killed. The bitterest lesson is knowing you have no freedom. Live your life as best you can and be happy....

History is changed at the wink of an eye.... remember LBJ wink when JFK was assassinated...

Slavery beat freedom? We Olympic final was that and who was the MVP?

Correction: Slavery beat freedom? What Olympic final was that and who was the MVP?