*HTML is OFF *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WjwhopA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage. --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historianDemocracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin A Republic, Not a Democracy! Steve FarrellFriday, March 4, 2005 Liberty Letters, Madison, Tucker, Jefferson, Adams, Letter 24Those who delude themselves into believing that our public schools and universities are telling the truth about the foundations of American government – or, for that matter, teaching our youth how to think – ought to read through the stack of e-mails I regularly receive from educated individuals who passionately defend that which is absolutely false and completely nonsensical.The latest came from a female New Yorker, responding to my article Blessed Tolerance: The 'Virtue' of a Republic in Decline, who worked herself into a lather over my suggestion that a "me first ... anything goes" democracy is a shortcut to tyranny, and that a return to "liberty under the law," as per a republic, is what America needs if America expects to remain free.I noted, summarizing Plato, that the ‘democratic man,' fixated on his beloved self-interest, first becomes tyrannized by his own lusts, and next tyrannizes everyone else in an unending attempt to satisfy his ever-growing list of lusts – which can never be fully satisfied. The point being that a society dominated by weak and undisciplined, brutish and unprincipled individuals is ripe for tyranny because slavery and tyranny are already their lot.Welcome to Human Nature 101. When self-love and self-indulgence are ranked as the greatest of rights, and toleration for every sort of extreme as the highest of virtues, trouble follows. Morality, law and stability take a hit. Turbulence, anarchy and political opportunism come in their wake.Why is that so hard to understand? This is why the founding father of modern communism, Karl Marx, initiated the battle cry of the Communist Manifesto: "We must win the battle of democracy!" And this is why the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, opposed democracy, in these words:[D]emocracies 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 have been violent in their deaths. (1) "A republic," by contrast, "opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (2)Get it? Communist Founder Marx wanted democracy, and American Founder Madison did not, for the very same reasons: Democracies are unstable, violent, short-lived political systems whose chief aim is the overthrow of private property.But that is not all. Democracies have other problems, as well, especially in their outlook on equality. They seek to "reduce mankind," Madison warned, "[until they are] equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." (3)That is, they preach and practice a false equality that, in the end, impoverishes and enslaves mankind economically, intellectually and morally into one common miserable lot.This is the exact opposite of the sort of equality the American Founders promoted. St. George Tucker, the author of the 1803 "View of the Constitution of the United States" (the first commentary on the U.S. Constitution), explained what our founders meant by "all men are created equal": By equality ... is to be understood, equality of civil rights and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own. But some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labors must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property are sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there would be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance. (4) Indeed, the American Founders rejected the equal-ends approach to equality because such an equality, the equality of a pure democracy, produces precisely what communism has always produced: "nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance, " even as it undermines the best in men.The Republic our Founders gave us, by embracing true equality – that is, equality under the law and equality of God-given rights – produced the most ingenious, industrious, prosperous, happy and enlightened people in history.And so let's not pussyfoot around here. What, then, is the real object of a national educational establishment that has rewritten our history books and imposed curriculum mandates that teach the rising generation that the American Founders gave us a democracy?And what, then, is this educational establishment's real objective when it uses democracy as justification for a "me first, anything goes" agenda that bans capitalism and Christianity from its "anything goes" list?Are we really naive enough to believe that this fraud was perpetrated by men and women of pure motives, who love American liberty so much that they feel compelled to lie about her foundations?My ‘educated' reader accused me of writing "an article supporting the end of our democracy." If she had been truly educated, she might have said, with Jefferson, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." (5) She might have said, "You are right, Steve. We are ‘a government of laws, not of men' (6) – that is, a republic, not a democracy – and since ‘the best republics will be virtuous, and have been so,' (7) it is incumbent upon all of us to say ‘No!' to false definitions of equality, and ‘No!' to moral extremes that aim to undermine ‘liberty under law' in favor of ‘anything goes,' on the way to absolute tyranny."She could have said that, but she didn't; and neither will millions of others similarly educated in this country. And so our work is cut out for us, isn't it? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/3/155323.shtml ozonefillerLets just say that I've owned Coco beach and then I put up a big billboard sign with these big red letters stating that "No one shall enter these premises unless they are female with large breasts and nice buttocks!" Would that be me just being "sexy", I mean "sexest"?Say I had enough of money to own Liberty Island and then I put up a big sign that said, "Keep off property!" or "Trespassers will be prosecuted!" would that make me un-American for exercising my rights in this country by doing such?I live not too far away from a place that is just about that! In a place called Lake Wallenpaupack, it is pretty much all privately owned and even though the only way you can really enjoy this lake is to [one] have property there, [two] have a fishing license and [three] own a boat! And even though you'll see(once you first get over there a beach, picnic area and such), if you get caught swimming in the water without having proof that you already live there, you could be facing up to two years in prison!Needless, I agree that one should have they're own privacy on they're own property, I do believe however that we should have some restrictions over how much land we tend to by up too as well!At least have somethings in this country for all of us to enjoy together as a nation!jwhopSo Ozone, you're one of those people who think someone should only be permitted to own what they need. Question,....as determined by whom? By you? By bureaucrats?And anyone owning or possessing more than they need should have it taken away....well, that is democracy for you. A bunch of people getting together to plunder the rights and property of others. Majority rules...right?Ummm, none for me..thanks. ozonefillerThat all depends JW, if the property was Mount Rushmore and it ended up being owned by some French guy, but he decides that it's only Americans that are not allowed to visit the area, but only people that are bilingual with one of the languages being French, the other being German(of course) and only uses the metric system, I'm sure that even you would feel that owning too much property in this country by anyone that had the money would be a crying shame, or don't you?jwhopNot likely Ozone. Mt Rushmore is a National Monument...in a National Park.But...if someone wanted to or did purchase a granite mountain, chisel images of Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Hugo Chavez into the mountain side, form an association, and limit membership to certifiable nuts...proof of their nuthood being the aluminum foil hats they wear...I wouldn't have a problem with that. Besides, it would be a plus to have all the nuts in one location. ozonefiller quote:Not likely Ozone. Mt Rushmore is a National Monument...in a National Park.So does that mean that it's controlled by bureaucrats and doesn't bureaucrats provide services to the public and doesn't the public enjoy these National Parks that is controlled by bureaucrats?So what exactly is it that you are driving at JW?jwhopMt Rushmore was YOUR talking point Ozone. Please feel free to get back to me on the subject WHEN the United States government sells the National Park and Monument to a corporation or private individual.ozonefillerHopefully that day will never happen, but that is property, is it not?Petronrepublics are a dime a dozen....i'm glad i live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic...not a republic or a democracy quote:"What's in a name, eh Petron?"-jwhopjwhop quote:i'm glad i live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic...not a republic or a democracyGlad to hear you've finally left the United States Petron. EleanoreThe United States - Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html Here is an article that goes a little into the confusion generally associated with the U.S. being a Republic instead of a Democracy, using as an example the case of Al Gore and George W. Bush both running for the presidency. http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.pdf America: Republic or Democracy?The Difference That it Makesby Herbert W. TitusSenior Legal AdvisorThe Liberty Committee© 2001 The Liberty Committee…[O]ur sages in the great [constitutional] convention…intended our governmentshould be a republic which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracyfrom a despotism. The rigours of a despotism often…oppress only a few, but it isthe very essence and nature of a democracy, for a faction claiming to oppress aminority, and that minority the chief owners of the property and truest lovers of their country.! Fisher Ames, American statesman, 1805We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramountconsideration. Our goal today…[is] to reach the result that reflects the will of the voters….The laws are intended to facilitate and safeguard the right of each voter to express his or herwill in the context of our representative democracy. Technical statutory requirements mustnot be exalted over the substance of this right.! Florida Supreme Court, 2000With the election of George W. Bush, America has its first president in over 100years to be elected to office without having received a plurality of the nationwide popularvote. Taking advantage of his popular plurality, Al Gore justified his fight for Florida’s 25electoral votes as a battle for “the integrity of our democracy [which] depends upon theconsent of the governed, freely expressed in an election where every vote counts.”Even after the Florida recounts under the extended timetable fixed by the FloridaSupreme Court yielded a Bush victory, Gore’s supporters insisted that Gore had a“moral right” to continue his contest “because he leads in the national popular vote.”Indeed, Gore’s more strident supporters claimed that, even if Bush won Florida, hispresidency would be illegitimate for his having failed to win the “vote of the people.”Countering this claim, Bush defenders took advantage of a nationally televisedmap showing that Bush had won 2,434 counties, while Gore had won only 677; thatBush’s counties covered 2,427,039 square miles of the nation, while Gore’s totaled only580,134; and that the population in Bush’s counties totaled 143 million while Gore’scounties trailed at 127 million. Thus, the Republicans maintained a Bush presidencywould enjoy national support, whereas a Gore presidency would be rooted primarily in afew densely populated regions of the country.The Bush plea fell on many a deaf ear, however, as the Gore forces trumpetedthe Warren-era Supreme Court’s “democratic ideal” of one person/one vote. Finally, theconservative wing of the current U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the seeminglyendless Florida recounts. But it did so on the grounds that the Florida Supreme Court’srecount order was not democratic enough, demonstrating that they, too, havesuccumbed to the liberal siren song that in modern America each voter’s vote must beweighed equally. (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. ---, 148 L Ed 2nd 388, 398, 400-01 (2000))2Ironically, the court’s democratic solution catapulted the “minority candidate” intothe White House. By resting its decision on the democratic ideal of one person/onevote, however, the court has undermined the very process by which President Bush,and all American presidents before him, has been elected. That process is governed bya constitutional formula deliberately calibrated to give greater weight to the votes of thesmall, less populated states, and thus, making it possible that a president could beelected with less than a nationwide majority of the popular vote.Indeed, the process set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of theUnited States does not even guarantee a popular vote for president. As the U.S.Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, supra,148 L Ed 2nd at 398, acknowledged, “[t]heindividual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for the President of theUnited States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as ameans to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” Thatdecision – not to prescribe a popular, nationwide election of the president – was noaccident, but was an integral part of the deliberate design of America’s founders tocreate a federal republic, not a national democracy.A Republic, If You Can Keep ItAt the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18,1787, a Mrs. Powell, anxiously awaiting the results, pressed Benjamin Franklin as heemerged from Independence Hall. She asked, “Well doctor, what have we got, arepublic or a monarchy?” Franklin quickly replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”From anti-federalist John Taylor to federalist Fisher Ames; from James Madisonof Virginia to Noah Webster of Massachusetts, Americans believed that they hadfounded a republic, thereby charting a middle course between the Scylla of a monarchyand the Charybdis of a democracy.John Taylor, the preeminent theorist of Jeffersonian Old Republicanism,proclaimed that “[a] federal republic is the best for maintaining a republican form ofgovernment over a country so extensive as the United States,” dividing power “betweenFederal and State departments to restrain ambitious men in both.” (J. Taylor, TyrannyUnmasked 263 (Liberty Fund: 1992)) In a series of essays on “Monarchical versusRepublican Government,” federalist Fisher Ames warned against appeals to “the will ofthe people,” claiming them to be mere camouflage for demagogues to seize tyrannicalpower without regard for the rule of law. (I Works of Fisher Ames 116-186 (LibertyFund: 1983))In Federalist numbers 10, 14, and 48, Madison insisted that the newConstitution established a republic, not a democracy, emphasizing in Federalist No. 10that a “Republican” form of government protected the people from the dangers oftyranny of the majority. In his “Examination into the Leading Principles of the FederalConstitution,” Noah Webster, writing as an American citizen, extolled the virtues of theAmerican republic’s bicameral legislature; the very design of which was to protect thepeople from rash and hasty laws passed by a transient, passionate majority.This unity among America’s founding statesmen remained unbroken as late as1945, 158 years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the 79th Congress of theUnited States unhesitatingly approved, by joint resolution, the official pledge of3allegiance to the flag of the United States, containing the phrase “and to the Republicfor which it stands.” Yet 60 years later, on the cusp of the 21st century, this affirmationthat America is a republic, like the pledge itself, has fallen from favor. In its place is anew declaration that America is, and always has been, a democracy.Indeed, there is hardly a voice left in Congress, much less in the White House,Republican or Democrat, who refers to our nation’s government as a republic. EvenPresident Bush declared that his election to the presidency was a vindication of theintegrity of “American democracy.” In doing so, the new president was simply followingsuit. For several decades, America’s political leaders have been promoting the virtuesof America’s “democratic ideal” within, by shaping public policy according to the latestopinion polls, and at the same time, exporting democracy abroad, by employingAmerican military power to reshape other nations’ governments to conform more closelyto “the will of the people.” Both goals stand, however, in direct contradiction toAmerica’s founding principles.America Is Not A DemocracyThose who insist that the United States of America is a democracy rest theirclaim on the foundational principle in the nation’s charter, the Declaration ofIndependence, “[t]hat governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powersfrom the consent of the governed.” To support this claim, they point to the preamble ofthe Constitution of the United States which begins “We, the people of the UnitedStates…do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.” Additionally,they rely upon statements such as the one that appears in Article I, Section1 of theFlorida constitution that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people,” a phrase thatappears in one form or another in every one of the 50 state constitutions.Such statements do not, however, support the proposition that the civilgovernments in America are democracies – quite the contrary. Read in context, all ofthese statements support the proposition that America’s governments are republican inform, not democratic.First, although the Declaration of Independence does affirm that governmentsderive their just powers from the consent of the governed, it does not, however, declarethat governments derive their purposes from the consent of the governed. Rather theDeclaration of Independence avers that those purposes are derived from the nature of acreated order, an order in which all mankind are endowed with certain “inalienablerights,” namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the Declaration ofIndependence concludes that governments are instituted to secure these rights, not toenforce the will of the governed.Second, although the Constitution of the United States does affirm that thepeople ordained and established the government of the United States, they did so, notto promote the will of the people, but to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessingsof liberty to ourselves and our posterity….” Likewise, although the state constitutionsaffirm that all power is inherent in the people, they did not establish state governmentsto obey the will of the people, but to ensure that all individuals enjoy their pre-existingrights of life, liberty, and property with which they have been naturally endowed.4To achieve these purposes, the people of the United States and of the severalstates well knew that a government under the direct control of the people was downrightdangerous, because, as James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, “there is nothing tocheck the inducements [of a majority] to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxiousindividual.” Thus, Madison contended, that a major task for any people seeking agovernment to protect life, liberty, and property was to “prevent” the majority fromimposing “injustice and violence” on individuals who did not share the majority’s“passion or interest.”To that end, Madison and his constitutional colleagues chose a republican, not ademocratic form of government.The Nation’s Republican Form of GovernmentAt the heart of a democratic form of government is the rule of the majority,unhindered by law. As the Florida Supreme Court, in support of its initial rulingextending the statutory deadlines for recounting the votes in the 2000 presidentialelections, explained: “[T]he will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance uponstatutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases….” By contrast, inBush v. Gore, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for himself and two of hiscolleagues, declared that the rule of the Constitution, in that case the power of theFlorida legislature, prevails over any judicial attempt to vindicate the power of thepeople.The foremost distinction between a democratic form of government and arepublican one, is the subordination of the power of the majority to the rule of law. Toaccomplish this, there must be rules of law that prevent the majority from imposing theirwill through the election process. The Constitution of the United States is replete withsuch safeguards. Not only is the legislative power divided between the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate, but also the number of senators is determined not inproportion to the population, but equally state by state. Even the U.S. House, themembership of which is proportionate to the population, guarantees to each state,regardless of population, at least one representative.Additionally, a bill does not become law simply upon the vote of a majority of themembers of both chambers of Congress. It is subject to the veto of the president, whichcan only be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both chambers. In addition, aspreviously mentioned, the state-by-state process by which the president is elected doesnot guarantee to a nationwide majority of the people the power to elect the president.Not only do these political checks and balances exist, but there is also theseparation of powers among the three branches of government. Even if a majority ofthe people voted for the president, the head of the executive branch, that same majoritycannot elect the members of the legislative branch, thereby ensuring that the electedofficials of the two branches answers to different constituencies of the people. As forthe judicial branch, its members are not elected, but appointed, and although thepresident has the power of appointment of federal judges, that power is subject to theadvice and consent of the Senate.Not only does the Constitution diffuse the powers of government within thefederal government, but also it divides the powers of government between two5independent and sovereign entities, the federal and the 50 states. As a government ofenumerated powers, Congress, the president and the courts are forbidden by the TenthAmendment from exercising the police power which belongs exclusively to the states.Finally, the constitutional provisions establishing the system of checks andbalances, separation of powers, and a federal union may not be changed by a majorityof the people, but only by an amendment process requiring majority votes of two-thirdsto propose and three-fourths to ratify. In addition, even these supra majorityrequirements cannot be exercised directly by the people, but only by their electedrepresentatives.All of these limits have been placed upon the federal government by the peoplewhose elected state representatives proposed the adoption of the Constitution, andwhose elected representatives ratified the Constitution in conventions assembled ineach of the original states. By so establishing these safeguards against the absoluterule of a majority, the people of the United States unquestionably created not ademocracy, but a republic, which John Adams succinctly defined as a government“bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.”(J. Adams, “Novanglus No. VII,” reprinted in The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams227 (Liberty Fund: 2000))The 50 States’ Republican Form of GovernmentNot only does the Constitution of the United States prescribe a republican form ofgovernment for the nation, but also, by Article IV, Section 4, commands the UnitedStates to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….”Each of the 13 original states entered the union, having already formed governmentswhich were republican in form, including political checks and balances and separation ofpowers in their respective constitutions. Additionally, those same states came into theunion subject to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, thereby committingeach state to enact laws to secure the inherent individual rights of life, liberty, andproperty, not to implement the will of the people.To ensure that future states admitted to the union were subject in like manner tothe republican principles of the nation’s charter, Congress, even before the ratification ofthe Constitution of the United States, resolved that new states formed out of theNorthwest Territories would be “republican…with the same rights of sovereignty,freedom, and independence as the other states.” (Sources of Our Liberties 387-88 (R.Perry, ed., Amer. Bar. Found.: 1978)) Thus, the Northwest Ordinance, adopted byCongress, prescribed that the newly formed states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,and Wisconsin would be admitted to the Union on an “equal footing with the originalStates, in all respects whatsoever….” (Id. At 397 emphasis added)Prior to the admission of these states, and thereafter, all of the states of theUnion have been admitted on the “same footing” (Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559(1911)), thereby fulfilling the obligation of the United States to guarantee each state arepublican form of government.As to preserving that republican form, the United States Supreme Court hasconsistently declined to impose a legal definition of a republican form of government,leaving it to Congress to enforce that guarantee by the exercise of Congress’s power to6admit to, or exclude from, that body a state’s elected representatives and senators.(See Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433,454-56 (1939)). As for Congress, it has not seenfit to intervene in the internal governmental affairs of the states, leaving it to the peopleof those states to determine the specific republican form of government by which theywill be ruled.It is certainly arguable that some states have approved some democraticprocedures that depart from the pure republican form. For example, the initiative andreferendum, whereby the people of some states, by constitutional amendment, havereserved to themselves the power to propose and enact laws independently of thelegislative assembly, as well as to approve or reject any act of that body, therebymaking it possible for public policy to be made directly by a majority without the politicalaccountability of a representative assembly. (See Federalist No. 10.) Such powers are,however, limited by law to “single subjects” and to legislative and executiveimplementation. To date, no state has substituted a system of direct democracy inwhich the people “assemble and administer the Government in person.” (Federalist 10)ConclusionJust under 200 years ago, Fisher Ames penned an essay warning the people ofAmerica not to place confidence in the democratic ideal whereby governments arestructured to reflect the will of the people. While the “power of the people is theirliberty,” he wrote, the people “can have no liberty without strong…restraints upon theirpower.” (I Works of Fisher Ames, supra, at 5) America’s founders knew this to be truebecause they had studied the history of democracies and discovered that they inevitablydestroyed both the morals and liberties of the people. If the modern-day drive fordemocracy in the nation continues, the American people will experience a similar fate.------------------"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow,as the night the day,Thou canst not then be falseto any man." - ShakespearejwhopVery good Eleanore, very good indeed! EleanoreThanks! ------------------"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow,as the night the day,Thou canst not then be falseto any man." - ShakespeareHarpyr quote:Please feel free to get back to me on the subject WHEN the United States government sells the National Park and Monument to a corporation or private individual.hmm... What about when the park service sells some of the last ancient redwood trees situated on public wildlife preserves to the highest bidding timber company who then proceeds to obliterate something that ethically belongs to the entire peoples, with the profits going into the pockets of a few barons? At some point private ownership is taken so far as to justify great atrocities wrought upon upon sacred places on the earth that no man has the right to claim sole rights to. NosiSGood deed indeed, Eleanore! This essay really helped me get a newer perspective.------------------"For it is only the finite that has wrought and suffered; the infinite lies stretched in smiling repose." -Ralph Waldo EmersonNosiSLMAO! quote:note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)Thank you, Census Bureau! Now I have the power to be any race I want to be! EleanoreWell, in all technicality, Hispanic isn't even an appropriate term ... originally referring to those from the island of Hispaniola which I believe is Haiti/The Dominican Republic. Neither is Latin American since we are not Latin in origin. Same goes with Spanish American ... hello, there is a country called Spain so their immigrants kind of take the Spanish American term, no? South American doesn't work for the Carribeans and vice versa. Race is different from country of origin. And, since most South Americans (including "Central" Americans) and Carribeans are mixed between the natives and the newcomers, it's not like we can just call ourselves some kind of Indians. So, racially, we are white or black or whatever, but culturally, (some would argue ethnically) we are "Hispanic". Quite a pickle. Me being of a mixed Carribean and "Central" American descent, filling out those forms is quite hilarious. I'm white. But wait, I'm also Hispanic. Or, no, that's not an option ... I can either choose Mexican or Cuban but not both, lol. Because that just doesn't happen, right? But then I can't choose white. Or I can if it's one that says white hispanic. Or white with a secondary box for Mexican or Cuban ... ------------------"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow,as the night the day,Thou canst not then be falseto any man." - ShakespeareNosiSLOL!!!Ultimately, the whole world is going to end up having that problem when they fill out any forms. Just give it a few generations.Then they'll have to change the forms... Randall ------------------"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca ClarkLittleLadyLeoEleanore - You could always do what I do, mark "Other" and write in "human." Of course, when I'm really feeling like a smart aleck (90% of the time) and they ask ethnicity I write in "Southern" and let them scratch their heads. LLL EleanoreLittleLadyLeoI might just consider writing in "human" one of these days. The thing that has me really laughing is that my husband is half Carribean "hispanic" and half Irish American. So our baby is going to be ... what? 3/4 "hispanic", 1/4 "white"? 2/4 Cuban, 1/4 Mexican, 1/4 Irish? Yet we're Americans, of course ... and skin-tone-wise we're white ... very pale white at that.I mean, really, it just gets ridiculous after a while. Maybe our whole family will just start a "human" trend and see where it takes us. ------------------"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow,as the night the day,Thou canst not then be falseto any man." - ShakespeareRandallHuman. ------------------"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca ClarkRandall*bump*------------------"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin
A Republic, Not a Democracy! Steve FarrellFriday, March 4, 2005 Liberty Letters, Madison, Tucker, Jefferson, Adams, Letter 24
Those who delude themselves into believing that our public schools and universities are telling the truth about the foundations of American government – or, for that matter, teaching our youth how to think – ought to read through the stack of e-mails I regularly receive from educated individuals who passionately defend that which is absolutely false and completely nonsensical.
The latest came from a female New Yorker, responding to my article Blessed Tolerance: The 'Virtue' of a Republic in Decline, who worked herself into a lather over my suggestion that a "me first ... anything goes" democracy is a shortcut to tyranny, and that a return to "liberty under the law," as per a republic, is what America needs if America expects to remain free.
I noted, summarizing Plato, that the ‘democratic man,' fixated on his beloved self-interest, first becomes tyrannized by his own lusts, and next tyrannizes everyone else in an unending attempt to satisfy his ever-growing list of lusts – which can never be fully satisfied.
The point being that a society dominated by weak and undisciplined, brutish and unprincipled individuals is ripe for tyranny because slavery and tyranny are already their lot.
Welcome to Human Nature 101. When self-love and self-indulgence are ranked as the greatest of rights, and toleration for every sort of extreme as the highest of virtues, trouble follows. Morality, law and stability take a hit. Turbulence, anarchy and political opportunism come in their wake.
Why is that so hard to understand? This is why the founding father of modern communism, Karl Marx, initiated the battle cry of the Communist Manifesto: "We must win the battle of democracy!" And this is why the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, opposed democracy, in these words:
[D]emocracies 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 have been violent in their deaths. (1) "A republic," by contrast, "opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (2)
Get it? Communist Founder Marx wanted democracy, and American Founder Madison did not, for the very same reasons: Democracies are unstable, violent, short-lived political systems whose chief aim is the overthrow of private property.
But that is not all. Democracies have other problems, as well, especially in their outlook on equality. They seek to "reduce mankind," Madison warned, "[until they are] equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." (3)
That is, they preach and practice a false equality that, in the end, impoverishes and enslaves mankind economically, intellectually and morally into one common miserable lot.
This is the exact opposite of the sort of equality the American Founders promoted. St. George Tucker, the author of the 1803 "View of the Constitution of the United States" (the first commentary on the U.S. Constitution), explained what our founders meant by "all men are created equal":
By equality ... is to be understood, equality of civil rights and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own. But some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labors must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property are sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there would be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance. (4) Indeed, the American Founders rejected the equal-ends approach to equality because such an equality, the equality of a pure democracy, produces precisely what communism has always produced: "nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance, " even as it undermines the best in men.
The Republic our Founders gave us, by embracing true equality – that is, equality under the law and equality of God-given rights – produced the most ingenious, industrious, prosperous, happy and enlightened people in history.
And so let's not pussyfoot around here. What, then, is the real object of a national educational establishment that has rewritten our history books and imposed curriculum mandates that teach the rising generation that the American Founders gave us a democracy?
And what, then, is this educational establishment's real objective when it uses democracy as justification for a "me first, anything goes" agenda that bans capitalism and Christianity from its "anything goes" list?
Are we really naive enough to believe that this fraud was perpetrated by men and women of pure motives, who love American liberty so much that they feel compelled to lie about her foundations?
My ‘educated' reader accused me of writing "an article supporting the end of our democracy." If she had been truly educated, she might have said, with Jefferson, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." (5)
She might have said, "You are right, Steve. We are ‘a government of laws, not of men' (6) – that is, a republic, not a democracy – and since ‘the best republics will be virtuous, and have been so,' (7) it is incumbent upon all of us to say ‘No!' to false definitions of equality, and ‘No!' to moral extremes that aim to undermine ‘liberty under law' in favor of ‘anything goes,' on the way to absolute tyranny."
She could have said that, but she didn't; and neither will millions of others similarly educated in this country. And so our work is cut out for us, isn't it? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/3/155323.shtml
Say I had enough of money to own Liberty Island and then I put up a big sign that said, "Keep off property!" or "Trespassers will be prosecuted!" would that make me un-American for exercising my rights in this country by doing such?
I live not too far away from a place that is just about that! In a place called Lake Wallenpaupack, it is pretty much all privately owned and even though the only way you can really enjoy this lake is to [one] have property there, [two] have a fishing license and [three] own a boat! And even though you'll see(once you first get over there a beach, picnic area and such), if you get caught swimming in the water without having proof that you already live there, you could be facing up to two years in prison!
Needless, I agree that one should have they're own privacy on they're own property, I do believe however that we should have some restrictions over how much land we tend to by up too as well!
At least have somethings in this country for all of us to enjoy together as a nation!
And anyone owning or possessing more than they need should have it taken away....well, that is democracy for you. A bunch of people getting together to plunder the rights and property of others. Majority rules...right?
Ummm, none for me..thanks.
But...if someone wanted to or did purchase a granite mountain, chisel images of Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Hugo Chavez into the mountain side, form an association, and limit membership to certifiable nuts...proof of their nuthood being the aluminum foil hats they wear...I wouldn't have a problem with that. Besides, it would be a plus to have all the nuts in one location.
quote:Not likely Ozone. Mt Rushmore is a National Monument...in a National Park.
So does that mean that it's controlled by bureaucrats and doesn't bureaucrats provide services to the public and doesn't the public enjoy these National Parks that is controlled by bureaucrats?
So what exactly is it that you are driving at JW?
i'm glad i live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic...not a republic or a democracy
quote:"What's in a name, eh Petron?"-jwhop
quote:i'm glad i live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic...not a republic or a democracy
Glad to hear you've finally left the United States Petron.
Here is an article that goes a little into the confusion generally associated with the U.S. being a Republic instead of a Democracy, using as an example the case of Al Gore and George W. Bush both running for the presidency. http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.pdf
America: Republic or Democracy?The Difference That it Makesby Herbert W. TitusSenior Legal AdvisorThe Liberty Committee© 2001 The Liberty Committee…[O]ur sages in the great [constitutional] convention…intended our governmentshould be a republic which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracyfrom a despotism. The rigours of a despotism often…oppress only a few, but it isthe very essence and nature of a democracy, for a faction claiming to oppress aminority, and that minority the chief owners of the property and truest lovers of their country.! Fisher Ames, American statesman, 1805We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramountconsideration. Our goal today…[is] to reach the result that reflects the will of the voters….The laws are intended to facilitate and safeguard the right of each voter to express his or herwill in the context of our representative democracy. Technical statutory requirements mustnot be exalted over the substance of this right.! Florida Supreme Court, 2000With the election of George W. Bush, America has its first president in over 100years to be elected to office without having received a plurality of the nationwide popularvote. Taking advantage of his popular plurality, Al Gore justified his fight for Florida’s 25electoral votes as a battle for “the integrity of our democracy [which] depends upon theconsent of the governed, freely expressed in an election where every vote counts.”Even after the Florida recounts under the extended timetable fixed by the FloridaSupreme Court yielded a Bush victory, Gore’s supporters insisted that Gore had a“moral right” to continue his contest “because he leads in the national popular vote.”Indeed, Gore’s more strident supporters claimed that, even if Bush won Florida, hispresidency would be illegitimate for his having failed to win the “vote of the people.”Countering this claim, Bush defenders took advantage of a nationally televisedmap showing that Bush had won 2,434 counties, while Gore had won only 677; thatBush’s counties covered 2,427,039 square miles of the nation, while Gore’s totaled only580,134; and that the population in Bush’s counties totaled 143 million while Gore’scounties trailed at 127 million. Thus, the Republicans maintained a Bush presidencywould enjoy national support, whereas a Gore presidency would be rooted primarily in afew densely populated regions of the country.The Bush plea fell on many a deaf ear, however, as the Gore forces trumpetedthe Warren-era Supreme Court’s “democratic ideal” of one person/one vote. Finally, theconservative wing of the current U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the seeminglyendless Florida recounts. But it did so on the grounds that the Florida Supreme Court’srecount order was not democratic enough, demonstrating that they, too, havesuccumbed to the liberal siren song that in modern America each voter’s vote must beweighed equally. (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. ---, 148 L Ed 2nd 388, 398, 400-01 (2000))2Ironically, the court’s democratic solution catapulted the “minority candidate” intothe White House. By resting its decision on the democratic ideal of one person/onevote, however, the court has undermined the very process by which President Bush,and all American presidents before him, has been elected. That process is governed bya constitutional formula deliberately calibrated to give greater weight to the votes of thesmall, less populated states, and thus, making it possible that a president could beelected with less than a nationwide majority of the popular vote.Indeed, the process set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of theUnited States does not even guarantee a popular vote for president. As the U.S.Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, supra,148 L Ed 2nd at 398, acknowledged, “[t]heindividual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for the President of theUnited States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as ameans to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” Thatdecision – not to prescribe a popular, nationwide election of the president – was noaccident, but was an integral part of the deliberate design of America’s founders tocreate a federal republic, not a national democracy.A Republic, If You Can Keep ItAt the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18,1787, a Mrs. Powell, anxiously awaiting the results, pressed Benjamin Franklin as heemerged from Independence Hall. She asked, “Well doctor, what have we got, arepublic or a monarchy?” Franklin quickly replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”From anti-federalist John Taylor to federalist Fisher Ames; from James Madisonof Virginia to Noah Webster of Massachusetts, Americans believed that they hadfounded a republic, thereby charting a middle course between the Scylla of a monarchyand the Charybdis of a democracy.John Taylor, the preeminent theorist of Jeffersonian Old Republicanism,proclaimed that “[a] federal republic is the best for maintaining a republican form ofgovernment over a country so extensive as the United States,” dividing power “betweenFederal and State departments to restrain ambitious men in both.” (J. Taylor, TyrannyUnmasked 263 (Liberty Fund: 1992)) In a series of essays on “Monarchical versusRepublican Government,” federalist Fisher Ames warned against appeals to “the will ofthe people,” claiming them to be mere camouflage for demagogues to seize tyrannicalpower without regard for the rule of law. (I Works of Fisher Ames 116-186 (LibertyFund: 1983))In Federalist numbers 10, 14, and 48, Madison insisted that the newConstitution established a republic, not a democracy, emphasizing in Federalist No. 10that a “Republican” form of government protected the people from the dangers oftyranny of the majority. In his “Examination into the Leading Principles of the FederalConstitution,” Noah Webster, writing as an American citizen, extolled the virtues of theAmerican republic’s bicameral legislature; the very design of which was to protect thepeople from rash and hasty laws passed by a transient, passionate majority.This unity among America’s founding statesmen remained unbroken as late as1945, 158 years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the 79th Congress of theUnited States unhesitatingly approved, by joint resolution, the official pledge of3allegiance to the flag of the United States, containing the phrase “and to the Republicfor which it stands.” Yet 60 years later, on the cusp of the 21st century, this affirmationthat America is a republic, like the pledge itself, has fallen from favor. In its place is anew declaration that America is, and always has been, a democracy.Indeed, there is hardly a voice left in Congress, much less in the White House,Republican or Democrat, who refers to our nation’s government as a republic. EvenPresident Bush declared that his election to the presidency was a vindication of theintegrity of “American democracy.” In doing so, the new president was simply followingsuit. For several decades, America’s political leaders have been promoting the virtuesof America’s “democratic ideal” within, by shaping public policy according to the latestopinion polls, and at the same time, exporting democracy abroad, by employingAmerican military power to reshape other nations’ governments to conform more closelyto “the will of the people.” Both goals stand, however, in direct contradiction toAmerica’s founding principles.America Is Not A DemocracyThose who insist that the United States of America is a democracy rest theirclaim on the foundational principle in the nation’s charter, the Declaration ofIndependence, “[t]hat governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powersfrom the consent of the governed.” To support this claim, they point to the preamble ofthe Constitution of the United States which begins “We, the people of the UnitedStates…do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.” Additionally,they rely upon statements such as the one that appears in Article I, Section1 of theFlorida constitution that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people,” a phrase thatappears in one form or another in every one of the 50 state constitutions.Such statements do not, however, support the proposition that the civilgovernments in America are democracies – quite the contrary. Read in context, all ofthese statements support the proposition that America’s governments are republican inform, not democratic.First, although the Declaration of Independence does affirm that governmentsderive their just powers from the consent of the governed, it does not, however, declarethat governments derive their purposes from the consent of the governed. Rather theDeclaration of Independence avers that those purposes are derived from the nature of acreated order, an order in which all mankind are endowed with certain “inalienablerights,” namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the Declaration ofIndependence concludes that governments are instituted to secure these rights, not toenforce the will of the governed.Second, although the Constitution of the United States does affirm that thepeople ordained and established the government of the United States, they did so, notto promote the will of the people, but to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessingsof liberty to ourselves and our posterity….” Likewise, although the state constitutionsaffirm that all power is inherent in the people, they did not establish state governmentsto obey the will of the people, but to ensure that all individuals enjoy their pre-existingrights of life, liberty, and property with which they have been naturally endowed.4To achieve these purposes, the people of the United States and of the severalstates well knew that a government under the direct control of the people was downrightdangerous, because, as James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, “there is nothing tocheck the inducements [of a majority] to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxiousindividual.” Thus, Madison contended, that a major task for any people seeking agovernment to protect life, liberty, and property was to “prevent” the majority fromimposing “injustice and violence” on individuals who did not share the majority’s“passion or interest.”To that end, Madison and his constitutional colleagues chose a republican, not ademocratic form of government.The Nation’s Republican Form of GovernmentAt the heart of a democratic form of government is the rule of the majority,unhindered by law. As the Florida Supreme Court, in support of its initial rulingextending the statutory deadlines for recounting the votes in the 2000 presidentialelections, explained: “[T]he will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance uponstatutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases….” By contrast, inBush v. Gore, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for himself and two of hiscolleagues, declared that the rule of the Constitution, in that case the power of theFlorida legislature, prevails over any judicial attempt to vindicate the power of thepeople.The foremost distinction between a democratic form of government and arepublican one, is the subordination of the power of the majority to the rule of law. Toaccomplish this, there must be rules of law that prevent the majority from imposing theirwill through the election process. The Constitution of the United States is replete withsuch safeguards. Not only is the legislative power divided between the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate, but also the number of senators is determined not inproportion to the population, but equally state by state. Even the U.S. House, themembership of which is proportionate to the population, guarantees to each state,regardless of population, at least one representative.Additionally, a bill does not become law simply upon the vote of a majority of themembers of both chambers of Congress. It is subject to the veto of the president, whichcan only be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both chambers. In addition, aspreviously mentioned, the state-by-state process by which the president is elected doesnot guarantee to a nationwide majority of the people the power to elect the president.Not only do these political checks and balances exist, but there is also theseparation of powers among the three branches of government. Even if a majority ofthe people voted for the president, the head of the executive branch, that same majoritycannot elect the members of the legislative branch, thereby ensuring that the electedofficials of the two branches answers to different constituencies of the people. As forthe judicial branch, its members are not elected, but appointed, and although thepresident has the power of appointment of federal judges, that power is subject to theadvice and consent of the Senate.Not only does the Constitution diffuse the powers of government within thefederal government, but also it divides the powers of government between two5independent and sovereign entities, the federal and the 50 states. As a government ofenumerated powers, Congress, the president and the courts are forbidden by the TenthAmendment from exercising the police power which belongs exclusively to the states.Finally, the constitutional provisions establishing the system of checks andbalances, separation of powers, and a federal union may not be changed by a majorityof the people, but only by an amendment process requiring majority votes of two-thirdsto propose and three-fourths to ratify. In addition, even these supra majorityrequirements cannot be exercised directly by the people, but only by their electedrepresentatives.All of these limits have been placed upon the federal government by the peoplewhose elected state representatives proposed the adoption of the Constitution, andwhose elected representatives ratified the Constitution in conventions assembled ineach of the original states. By so establishing these safeguards against the absoluterule of a majority, the people of the United States unquestionably created not ademocracy, but a republic, which John Adams succinctly defined as a government“bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.”(J. Adams, “Novanglus No. VII,” reprinted in The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams227 (Liberty Fund: 2000))The 50 States’ Republican Form of GovernmentNot only does the Constitution of the United States prescribe a republican form ofgovernment for the nation, but also, by Article IV, Section 4, commands the UnitedStates to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….”Each of the 13 original states entered the union, having already formed governmentswhich were republican in form, including political checks and balances and separation ofpowers in their respective constitutions. Additionally, those same states came into theunion subject to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, thereby committingeach state to enact laws to secure the inherent individual rights of life, liberty, andproperty, not to implement the will of the people.To ensure that future states admitted to the union were subject in like manner tothe republican principles of the nation’s charter, Congress, even before the ratification ofthe Constitution of the United States, resolved that new states formed out of theNorthwest Territories would be “republican…with the same rights of sovereignty,freedom, and independence as the other states.” (Sources of Our Liberties 387-88 (R.Perry, ed., Amer. Bar. Found.: 1978)) Thus, the Northwest Ordinance, adopted byCongress, prescribed that the newly formed states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,and Wisconsin would be admitted to the Union on an “equal footing with the originalStates, in all respects whatsoever….” (Id. At 397 emphasis added)Prior to the admission of these states, and thereafter, all of the states of theUnion have been admitted on the “same footing” (Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559(1911)), thereby fulfilling the obligation of the United States to guarantee each state arepublican form of government.As to preserving that republican form, the United States Supreme Court hasconsistently declined to impose a legal definition of a republican form of government,leaving it to Congress to enforce that guarantee by the exercise of Congress’s power to6admit to, or exclude from, that body a state’s elected representatives and senators.(See Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433,454-56 (1939)). As for Congress, it has not seenfit to intervene in the internal governmental affairs of the states, leaving it to the peopleof those states to determine the specific republican form of government by which theywill be ruled.It is certainly arguable that some states have approved some democraticprocedures that depart from the pure republican form. For example, the initiative andreferendum, whereby the people of some states, by constitutional amendment, havereserved to themselves the power to propose and enact laws independently of thelegislative assembly, as well as to approve or reject any act of that body, therebymaking it possible for public policy to be made directly by a majority without the politicalaccountability of a representative assembly. (See Federalist No. 10.) Such powers are,however, limited by law to “single subjects” and to legislative and executiveimplementation. To date, no state has substituted a system of direct democracy inwhich the people “assemble and administer the Government in person.” (Federalist 10)ConclusionJust under 200 years ago, Fisher Ames penned an essay warning the people ofAmerica not to place confidence in the democratic ideal whereby governments arestructured to reflect the will of the people. While the “power of the people is theirliberty,” he wrote, the people “can have no liberty without strong…restraints upon theirpower.” (I Works of Fisher Ames, supra, at 5) America’s founders knew this to be truebecause they had studied the history of democracies and discovered that they inevitablydestroyed both the morals and liberties of the people. If the modern-day drive fordemocracy in the nation continues, the American people will experience a similar fate.
------------------"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow,as the night the day,Thou canst not then be falseto any man." - Shakespeare
quote:Please feel free to get back to me on the subject WHEN the United States government sells the National Park and Monument to a corporation or private individual.
hmm... What about when the park service sells some of the last ancient redwood trees situated on public wildlife preserves to the highest bidding timber company who then proceeds to obliterate something that ethically belongs to the entire peoples, with the profits going into the pockets of a few barons? At some point private ownership is taken so far as to justify great atrocities wrought upon upon sacred places on the earth that no man has the right to claim sole rights to.
------------------"For it is only the finite that has wrought and suffered; the infinite lies stretched in smiling repose." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
quote:note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)
Thank you, Census Bureau! Now I have the power to be any race I want to be!
Ultimately, the whole world is going to end up having that problem when they fill out any forms. Just give it a few generations.
Then they'll have to change the forms...
------------------"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark
LLL
The thing that has me really laughing is that my husband is half Carribean "hispanic" and half Irish American. So our baby is going to be ... what? 3/4 "hispanic", 1/4 "white"? 2/4 Cuban, 1/4 Mexican, 1/4 Irish? Yet we're Americans, of course ... and skin-tone-wise we're white ... very pale white at that.I mean, really, it just gets ridiculous after a while. Maybe our whole family will just start a "human" trend and see where it takes us.
Copyright 2000-2023 Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a