“ ‘The will of the nation’ is one of those expressions, which have been most profusely abused by the wily, and the despotic of every age. To the eyes of some it has been represented by the venal suffrages of a few of the satellites of power; to others, by the votes of a timid or an interested minority; and some have even discovered it in the silence of a people, on the supposition that the fact of submission established the right of command...


“In America, the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. If there be a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its application to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its advantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly America...


“The American Revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, which had been nurtured in the townships, took possession of the state: every class was enlisted in its cause; battles were fought, and victories obtained for it; until it became the law of laws...


“At the present day (1836) the principle of the sovereignty of the people has acquired, in the United States, all the practical development which the imagination can conceive. It is unencumbered by those fictions, which have been thrown over it in other countries, and it appears in every possible form according to the exigency of the occasion. Sometimes the laws are made by the people in a body, as in Athens; and sometimes its representatives, chosen by universal suffrage, transact business in its name, and almost under its immediate control...


“In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself for itself. All power centers in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive, or, still more, to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in the making of its laws by the choice of its legislatures, and in the execution of them by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost be said to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin and the power from which they emanate...”


These scintillating observations of the personal supremacy of the American people over their government are Alexis de Tocqueville’s, when he, as a young French man, toured this promontory between the shining seas.


A March 7th, 2003 Geraldine Hawkins article, recounting Judge Edith Jones’ of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit address to the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School in which she laments the awesome decay of our legal system brought de Tocqueville to mind.


In her speech Judge Jones had occasion to make reference to Alexis de Tocqueville, whom she identifies as the author of Democracy in America and I was struck by the enormous subtle perversion to which this book has been subjected. The original full title of the book is “The Republic of the United States of America, and its political institutions, reviewed and examined.”  The judge and apparently no one else seemed aware of it. One can only wonder why it was so important to someone to change this wonderful and all-telling title.


These then are some of de Tocqueville's observations when he, in the mid-1830s, toured America and his powers of observation were impeccable indeed. However, he sees neither reason nor origin for that sovereignty as he found it to be so firmly vested in the American people. He seems to think freedom and sovereignty to be the same, yet something seems to tell him they are not, for he studiously avoids making such a connection.


Being foreign-born and foreign-lived, he saw only two forms of government: aristocracy and democracy. If it was not the one, it was the other and the American Republic, the Great Republic, therefore, to him was just another form of democracy. He saw that equality, the basis of sovereignty, was also the Achilles’ heel of the Great Republic. While he saw the churches and had seen them to be the underlying reason for the peoples’ graciousness, he never did come to understand that the allegiance to an Author of Liberty was the basis for the American uniqueness and the very reason why the Americans thought of themselves as a sovereign people. To him God was a relative and highly subjective perception and, therefore, not the critical ingredient that produced the Great Republic. Sovereignty, to him, was just there, an apparition and apparently dependent on nothing and we are again poignantly reminded of how subtracting one element from another can convert sugar into poison, how a spiritual factor subtracted from a true republic changes life to death.


So he did see the sovereignty, but not its nexus to the God-given right to keep and bear arms. But he saw that what would happen would depend on the will of man.


There were others who visited here. De Tocqueville was not the only foreigner who came to see what this strange people, these Americans, had wrought here. Germans came, mostly aristocrats, the only ones wealthy enough to visit this great land. They came and all they were able to discover was that the land was full of “Freiheitsflegeln”. It is an unusual compounding, coined for the occasion, and, therefore, retains a notion of humor inherent in contempt. Freely translated it means “freedom punks”, but to keep the alliteration, I prefer to translate it as “liberty louts”.


Understanding these implications, will give a perfect understanding of "Sovereignty". I find that concept most poignantly described in a cowhand's reply to a visiting Englishman well over a 100 years ago, while the latter was desperately looking for the ranch in the vast expansions of Montana. "Where is your master?" the Englishman had wanted to know. For me the cowboy’s reply reflects what I define to be the quintessential element of the American character. I was not there to see him, but I can picture him. Side-straddled on his horse, calmly rolling a cigarette, licking the edges, placing it between his lips, scarcely looking at his querent, and then taking a few puffs he finally gave answer without rancor or showing to be the least bit disturbed: "That sumbitch ain't been born yet!" For me that says everything.

His answer was most poignantly reflective of a truly free man, knowing fully well that his life was unencumbered by the will of others. The Germans also saw it, but given the German cultural rigidity, it was difficult for them to comprehend that a free people do not show deference and respect by genuflexion or any other form of prostration. Respect is not absent, when addressing one another by one’s first name. And so American freedom, for them, translated into disrespect.


The only foreigner I know who came to see and to taste the miracle here and come closest to comprehending it, comprehend it with emotions no less, was Anton Dvorak, Czech composer, who immortalized his impression in his “From The New World” symphony – a most sonorous symphonic reflection of freedom.


            But even he does not suspect that freedom’s origin is to be found in the bosom of sovereignty and graciousness in the face of it. No one truly understood and de Tocqueville was no exception. He saw, saw with unequalled clarity, but he neither understood reason nor origin. He never even suspected there was a reason or an origin of the people’s sovereignty; it was just there and to him it was at best the same as freedom.


But there is a nexus between sovereignty and freedom; the two are not the same, far from it. To find that connection, nothing I can think of that can more clearly determine it is the prevailing arguments abolitionists brought before the outbreak of the War Between the States, when they sought to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of slavery.


“All men are created equal,” they said the Declaration of Independence insisted, “therefore, the black man had a God-given right to keep and bear arms. And since the right to keep and bear arms was palpably inconsistent with slavery, slavery was proved to be unconstitutional.”


It should not require special lucidity here to note they did not say “Bill of Rights”, but pointed instead directly to the Second Amendment and in so doing made it clear the Second Amendment was the quintessential essence of the entire Bill of Rights and we would do well to reflect on the Second Amendment’s antithesis, for if the right to keep and bear arms is palpably inconsistent with slavery, then the prohibition to keep and bear arms is palpably consistent with it.


If we expand on that perception to agree that a right is the unencumbered expression of one’s intent translating into freedom, then if that expression has to be preceded by someone else’s permission, permission is proved to be slavery. Therefore, if the right to keep and bear arms is palpably inconsistent with slavery, permission is then palpably consistent with it.


In other portions of his book, de Tocqueville reveals an uncanny ability to foresee the decay of the American Republic into despotism, but other than holding the notion of equality suspect he is destitute of understanding the real reasons for it.


But right he was. He saw our lot and saw it clearly, saw the day would come, when we would be “ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censored, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation,” as well as permitted and forbidden. Today others also sense it. But despite all this it still translates for them into freedom.


The French Revolution, whose savage climax he barely missed, but whose aftermath most clearly influenced his thinking, was actually one of the most poignant demonstrations of a democracy in action: if only government can procure the best, give the maximum good to the greatest number, human nature will presume to have itself included in that greatest number, defining only the filthy rich to belong to the smallest number. Democracy then is exposed to allow the greatest number to prey on the smallest number. And in the ensuing feeding frenzy no one notices that the two numbers are highly reflexive and continuously interchangeable.


So then adding or subtracting sometimes just an electron indeed changes sugar to poison and this is what de Tocqueville did not see. Had he seen it, he might have realized the true reason for the American peoples’ sovereignty to be uniquely dependent on the God-given, not a man-given, right to keep and bear arms. Removing God changed that right to keep and bear arms to a man-given right, changed it into permission, and with that the Great Republic came to be replaced with a democracy.


He saw Liberty, the Daughter of God, had her castle here on these Elysian Fields between the two seas. He saw She resided and held court here. Justice and Reason were Her amanuenses and made Her citadel glisten in iridescent splendor in the minds of them who had called themselves Sons of Liberty. But God came to be impugned! Thus Liberty was mortally wounded and formally declared to be deceased in 1968. With Her burial also were buried Justice and Reason, leaving democracy to fill Her vacancy, replacing Reason with fatuity, imbecility, and hate and, worst of all, Justice with injustice – the savagery of democracy.


The reflections millions have today concerning democracy boggle the mind. They are not only so perversely untrue, but also show how unwilling people are to see democracy for the true horror that it is and, therefore, will not let go of it. Reflecting on such intransigence I find it difficult indeed to suppress the reflection of a man refusing to withdraw his hand from a raging flame, because he has convinced himself fire is cold and when later reflecting on what is left of his hand presumes it to be only an illusion.


And what is this to which they so tenaciously cling? Evil, raw evil, the embodiment of democracy! We will have to begin soon to understand that terror, madness - all things bad - are all natural to democracy. It is evil then that is devouring us, not as a foreign pathogen but as a natural resident of democracy, for this is the natural result when the state becomes a nanny, a caretaker – all under color of compassion and justice. Then, strengthened by the power of law, government intrudes into personal affairs. But it is not justice, for law to have a rightful, legitimate claim to intrude into the affairs of man it must be the embodiment of pure justice, but justice was laid to rest, when the Daughter of God was laid to rest.


Government is now sole arbiter of justice and the peoples’ only responsibility is to choose wisely whom they want to have reflect that justice. But other than having the ability to choose wisely, while in a voting booth, people are taken to be totally bereft of any logic, direction, and purpose; are taken just to be an inert mass, too stupid to know what is good for them and would most probably drown in an inch of water, if left unattended. Potential skills, reflective of greatness they have, but it requires the injection by legislators, cloaked in the mantle of omnipotence to bring these incipient skills to surface with the power of the law, so that the greatness of the Nation can be reflected toward the world. Goodness is their motive, power their means, and loss of liberties their cost. Let us then begin to understand that all these pathogens, now devouring our Nation, are born in good, and good and evil are the same.


But evil is reflected in another name and no one here should be without understanding that evil is the crucible in which socialism is distilled. Socialism, the core projection of any democracy, legalizes the taking of property belonging to others. That is tantamount to legalizing plunder, in fact it is legalized plunder camouflaged in the guise of securing the maximum good for the greatest number of people, and legalized plunder is injustice and injustice is the absence of justice, the old overlord. That is the simplest explanation why a democracy cannot discharge its fiscal affairs with money backed by silver and gold. Only fiat money, money backed by debt, can have legal tender here. Thus there can be no justice in a democracy. Here jurisprudence can only pretend to strive for justice, but never with the spirit of the law, only with the help of the letter of the law, and that letter today is corrupt. Thus socialism unloosed a monster that scarcely can be fathomed.


I once had occasion to sit next to Joe Sullivan. A woman, having overheard my most disparaging remarks on democracy, extolled the beauty of socialism and accused me of not having any compassion. Before I could give answer she had left. So I will give answer here. If creatures like she had not intruded into my life, I could have been more compassionate toward my three sons than I am now able to be. She destroyed my country, dissolved my liberties, and placed all my possessions at risk. Every time she is aroused, she eyes my possessions, determines I have more than enough, and then believes herself to be gracious by not taking my entire surplus, but only a portion of it instead.


I do not know how many understand the evil, the madness, of socialism. All I know is some do. But these are so focused on the evil itself that the source of its power has escaped their notice, and that power lies deeply embedded in the failure to see the incredible kinship of good and evil and its twisted outcome of enforced compassion. Hitler did not understand this and it was his undoing. He was convinced die Vorsehung had appointed him to demonstrate that through his power combined with compassion the true greatness of the German people should be revealed and the whole world come to be blessed as well because of it. But he learned the world thought him a monster and he was astonished by it. And we would do well to learn that only when we realize that good is the birthplace of evil can we begin to comprehend the true magnitude of this madness.


In reflecting on the virulence of democracy, I must admit to the difficulty of explicating it. Unlike Americans born on these shores, I cannot mix and match. I cannot extract parts from one and then from another, mix them in the hope of getting something better. I know it cannot be done. I know evil requires no conception, has no gestation, no birth, and no childhood. It has no beginning, it is everywhere, lurking, and always present, just waiting to be unleashed and the simple-minded are only all too prone to unfetter it. I know, because I was born in one of the most virulent democracies, a virulence all democracies in time will reach. It was then the most destructive democracy known to man and it prepared me to accentuate to anyone the grizzly distinction - grizzly when reflecting on the Great Republic - between a democracy and the Great Republic. Let me quickly hasten to explain that when I use the appellation "Great", I refer to the American Republic, the only true republic ever, according to Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution, the only form of government the Founding Fathers had assembled here.


What was different then was that evil was held at bay, held at bay by justice, that feudal overlord to whom the colonists and the Founding Fathers had sworn allegiance and obeisance. Remove justice and evil is decaged and the heat of terror is imposed. I felt that heat once before and after that tasted the balminess of liberty and now I feel the old heat again.


Let me make certain that no one misunderstands! I do not imply democracy to have anything good, any redeeming features at all. Whatever benevolence democracy displays is only in the beginning. It is like the standard operating procedure of a flimflam man. The end is always terror and terror is as normal to a democracy as stench is to sewage, in fact raw sewage. The terror spawned is not intentional, not intentional by its administrators, but is proffered by the illusionary belief that it serves to produce paradise. If you close your eyes and imagine the worst you can conceive and then multiply it by infinity, you will have discovered the best part of democracy. You say this is hyperbole; think again, it is not.


            I know the chance I take in defining democracy to be raw sewage, but I must take that chance. I know, with only a few exceptions, no American can truly comprehend, never having felt the fires of damnation. I am sorely tempted to reach into the gutter in search of a language appropriate and sufficiently adequate to depict democratic terror. But I will try without.


If someone, invested with power by nature, gives permission to someone also with natural power, his permission becomes a request. When given to someone not invested by nature with power, permission becomes authorization. But when someone, not invested by nature with power, gives permission it is of necessity to someone who has natural power, and then permission becomes tyranny. All national entities contain two kinds of people, those who have power given by God and those who do not and when government, which does not naturally have power, is unloosed to give permission to those who naturally have authority, the people, then tyranny is also unloosed.


And how did authority come to be invested in the American citizen? Again, it bears repeating: by courtesy of the God-given right to keep and bear arms! This then de Tocqueville did not see! And now we should have no difficulty recognizing that republic, as in the Great Republic only, and democracy are not synonymous!


            Now let us reflect on what our Founding Fathers had in mind, when they coined those scintillating words that today bring tears to my eyes. Their quotes, as well as the quotes of some by recent Americans, attesting to the fact that others today also see what was intended here, are forever resplendent of the truth, then the guiding light to glory. But first let us recognize that not a single one attributable to the Founding Fathers, or to anyone imbued with the willingness to see that our Republic is destroyed, including Ayn Rand’s, comes to mind that does not express in most euphoric terms the beauty of liberty, not only in perception but also in eloquence. This is the reason why I believe we are all prone to cite them, whenever an opportunity presents itself. But what is forgotten, or at least overlooked, is that when these ringing words exposed the immeasurable greatness of those who crafted them, they were spoken to secure and to certify the Great Republic. When we repeat them today, we repeat them to the background of a most cancerous form of government, an entrenched and well-established democracy. Then no explications were needed, now they are. It goes to solving the problem facing us, for to solve a problem, you must not only know you have a problem, you must also know what kind of a problem you have, how it came to be a problem, and, if possible, who caused it to be a problem. And using today’s language will not give answers.



"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."


--Thomas Jefferson


"Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?"


--Thomas Jefferson


"You will never know how much it cost…[us] to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."


--John Quincy Adams


"…the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."


--George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 19, 1796


            "The great and paramount purpose, was, to unite this mass of wealth and power, for the protection of the humblest individual; his rights, civil and political, his interests and prosperity, are the sole end; the rest are nothing but the means."


--William Johnson, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 22 U.S. 1, 223


            "But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it…. the law of the State…must yield to it."


Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 22 U.S. 1, 210-211

“If the time shall ever come (which Heaven avert), when men shall be placed in the supreme tribunal of the country, who entertain opinions hostile to the just powers of the Constitution, we shall then be visited by an evil defying all remedy. Our case will be past surgery. From that moment the Constitution is at an end…If I live to see that day come, I shall despair of the country…I know of no security against the possibility of this evil, but an awakened public vigilance. I know of no safety, but in that state of public opinion which shall lead it to rebuke and put down every attempt…to dilute the Constitution by creating a court which shall construe away its provisions…Let us hope that we shall never see the time when…the government shall be found in opposition to the Constitution, and when the guardians of Union shall become its betrayers."


--Daniel Webster, Excerpts from his sobering warning delivered at a public dinner in New York on March 10, 1831 [Emphasis added.]


"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended…[by a] theory of necessity on which it is based is false…"


-Ex Parte Milligan (1866) 71 U.S. 2, 120-12


“…the courts must obey the Constitution…"                   


- Mugler v. Kansas (1887) 123 U.S. 623, 661


"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."


-- George Sutherland, Assoc. Press v. National Labor Relations Board (1938) 301 U.S. 141 [Dissenting.]    


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;…"


--Robert J. Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638


"The approval given today to what was done by the arresting officers in this case indicates that we are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end."


-Justice Felix Frankfurter, Davis v. United States (1946) 328 U.S. 582, 597 [Dissenting.]


"The protection of constitutional rights is not to be approached either pragmatically or expediently, and though the fact of enactment of a constitutional provision by heavy vote of the electorate produces pause and generates restraint we can not, true to our oath, uphold such legislation in the face of palpable infringement of rights… It is too clear for argument that constitutional law is not a matter of majority vote. Indeed, the entire philosophy of the Fourteenth Amendment teaches that it is personal rights which are to be protected against the will of the majority."


- Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado (1964) 377 U.S. 713, 737 [Quoting with approval a lower federal case.]


"One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning."


Griswold v. State of Conn. (1965) 381 U.S. 479 [Justices Black and Stewart, dissenting.]


"If the sacrifice must be made, let it be so in accordance with the Constitution, not naked police fiat."


Judge Crosby, Concurring in People v. Richard T. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 855, 898


"Routine roadblocks call to mind the way police and soldiers are deployed in authoritarian societies. Even if they were conducted in a uniform and in a friendly manner, they would be inconsistent with American constitutional and political traditions…such activities by law enforcement authorities, while commendable…draw dangerously close to what may be referred to as a police state."


People v. Richard T. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 855, 892


"I, as much as anyone, long to see a society purged of…crime. Yet, I am not willing to destroy the basic concepts of our constitutional freedoms in an attempt to achieve it…. While we fight the "war" against these terrible societal problems, let us not cause the Bill of Rights to be one of its victims…however desirable it may be to live in a society safe from [crime,] such society must not be obtained by destruction of, or even intrusion upon, those individual freedoms which make our country and society unique in the world."


People v. Richard T. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 855, 898-899 [Judge Trotter and Judge Wallin, concurring.]


"If we abandon constitutional protections to combat every abhorrent crime which has captured the public’s attention, we will find ourselves naked and unprotected in a hurry."


Justice Panelli, Dissenting in People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926,949


"If we are going to keep "the Blessings of Liberty" we must preserve our freedom. To do that, we must respect our Constitution. To do that, we must obey its commands, and not fear Freedom. Unfortunately, some officials have embarked down a dangerous course. As an anonymous U.S. Army officer in Vietnam quipped, "To save the village we had to destroy it." We do not have to "destroy" the Constitutional Rule of Law to "save" America from al-Qaeda, etc. A gutted U.S. Constitution would beget a freedom unworthy of defending, reward bin Laden, and give those who hate us exactly what they want: Our destruction, with a twist: We did it to ourselves out of an overreaction to fear."


Author unknown to me


"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes…Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, not court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."


--Learned Hand, Judge


"We meet in this case, as in many, the appeal to necessity. It is said that if such arrests and searches cannot be made, law enforcement will be more difficult and uncertain. But the forefathers, after consulting the lessons of history, designed our Constitution to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance…"


United States v. Di Re 332 U.S. 581, 595


"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose that freedom; and the irony of it is if it is comfort that it values more, it will lose that too.


--W. Somerset Maugham


"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizen may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."


--Ayn Rand


“the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government."


Franklin Delano Roosevelt, strangely enough

Now lest we forget who is the foundation of the Great Republic, let some of the Funding Fathers speak again, because it was their appeal, which secured for us a reality now delegated to the realm of forgetfulness.


“The precepts of philosophy laid hold of actions only...(but Jesus) pushed His scrutinies into the heart of man, erected His tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountainhead.”


Thomas Jefferson


“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis - a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? My views are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...”


Thomas Jefferson


"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians ... Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."


Patrick Henry.


“Direct my thoughts, my works, my word. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily frame me more and more unto the likeness of thy Son Jesus Christ.”


George Washington


            And so that we may know who this God is to Whom the Founders made their appeal, let Him speak Himself:


“The Lord our God be with us as He was with our Fathers. May He not leave us or forsake us, so that He may incline our hearts to Him to walk in all his ways. That you may know that the Lord he is God and that there is no other.”


I Kings 8:57, 58a; Deuteronomy 4:35b



In summary let us reflect once again on what once had been the essence of this Nation’s splendor and what is now the stench of its corruption. Here one easily recognizes the marvel this nation once was.


It is odd, at least some may find it odd, but that does not include me, that the description of the Great Republic cannot be matched to a dictionary definition. It remains static and simplistic in its derivation. It is God’s design and thus simplicity defines its greatness, while democracy is the horned bastard’s attempt to outdo God. It too cannot be matched to a dictionary’s definition, for it reflects his inability and, therefore, finds itself in a constant state of fluidity, ever looking for that level of supremacy, but never finding it. The endless source of pathogens spawned in democracy then will never allow democracy to be fitted into an acceptable form of definition.


A democracy’s only change can be from worse to worst. Other than that it is no more able to change than a lion can change into a lamb. Lamenting, constant bemoaning governmental wrongdoings without elucidating the reasons for them is like trying to move a mountain with wishful thinking. What is required then is to explain that no other outcome was possible. It was not that the outcome was predictable, it was, but it was that no other outcome was indeed possible.


We look at the engineers of our destruction as evildoers. And that they are. But not because they orchestrate our undoing, no, but because, having entered the arena of socialism, the nimbus of democracy, they had no other choice. In a sense they are innocent, innocent of producing the disease, they are guilty of just having opened the door and the rest was inevitable.


Democracy is variously united with oxymoronic perceptions – Christian, Free, Republic and many others - all designed to cloak democracy with splendor. But they do not! Everything rotten, everything depraved, everything raunchy, especially the dumbing down of the American citizen, all carry the imprimatur of democracy and the absurd idiotic marriage of anything with democracy is euphemistic lunacy designed to hide the fact that all our woes are born of a democracy and as long as we are willing not to understand this, we will never see how we are destroying ourselves.


But if we reject the notion that a definition defines content, we are free to let an outcome make the assertion. And then democracy is revealed to be the power base for socialism and thus defined to be that form of government, where people have the power, their only power, to demand government use its institutional right and authority, under cover of compassion, to distribute property taken from one group and give it to another. In other words democracy is unmitigated madness and terror.


Let us also understand that no amount of time can give sufficient occasion to enumerate the myriad of pathogens inherent in democracy. But its etiology can easily be seen in summary.


People for inexplicable reasons have come to confuse democracy with freedom, but government’s incessant intrusions into their daily lives has their subconscience in upheaval, suspecting that it cannot be so, a suspicion which when unanswered after prolonged wondering, debilitates the human spirit. A debilitated human spirit becomes frustrated and is then rife for depression and when depressed, will gravitate toward anger, and anger, when it cannot be focussed, turns to rage, blind rage. One has but to reflect on the plight of American Indians who picture the old ways and cannot comprehend their present lot in life. And like they, we too have determined our fate.


It is blind rage then which we see reflected everywhere in our daily lives: road rage, school shootings, mass shootings, diner shootings, marital problems, alcoholism, and many other un-American conducts, including the Scott Petersons and the Brian Nichols’. Brian Nichols, watching himself profiled on his hostage’s television, commented:” This is not me!” He was wrong! It was he, but he came to be here propelled by blind rage, a rage unleashed in him by the pathogens of democracy.


Of course not all our woes are the results of unleashed democracy. Man’s proclivitous leanings toward wrongdoing would make such an assertion absurd. But I cannot help wondering why apparently with only a few exceptions no one has noticed that this tsunami, this avalanche of madness swept us into the abyss, when, beginning in the early 1960s, democracy asserted its death grip on our lives, when Americans had begun to abolish the Great Republic. And now the American soul is everywhere in retreat, in full retreat into the dark realms hell.


However, there is hope of sorts. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. They all contain the elements of self-destruction of which in time they will make ready use. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. While that does not portend reassurance for us today, it does, however, satisfy the lust for vengeance.


But let us not despair and reflect on history. For since time immemorial, nations have progressed through this sequence: from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence into bondage; from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage back to liberty.


In reflecting then I see hope, for I cannot believe that He Who honored the appeal the Founding Fathers made to Him would abandon His masterpiece, even if only a few were to make the same appeal to Him today.



Dieter H. Dahmen
Body and Soul American

March 2005