2. It's no accident that in school we're taught that the form of govt in the US is a democracy. Our MARXIST textbooks, politicians & #FakeNews say the same thing.
How many times do we hear politicians say that a certain act, idea, or bill is a potential threat to our democracy?
3. Problem is, nothing could be further from the truth. Our country is not a democracy, IT IS A REPUBLIC.
Our founders saw that democracy was another form of tyranny. As such, they intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our great nation to be a republic.
4. A republic and a democracy are similar except for a most fundamental difference: where each places sovereignty, or power.
A democracy gives sovereignty to the citizens as a whole group, or majority, while a republic gives sovereignty to THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE PEOPLE. #MAGA
5. In a democracy, rights are determined by the majority, granted by the government, and given to the majority whether or not the subservient minority agrees.
In a democracy, individuals are not recognized, but rather two groups, the majority and the minority, are recognized.
6. In a democracy, there is no such thing as a minority group w rights nor an individual w rights, EXCEPT those determined by the dictatorial majority. To solve a problem, only the majority is authorized to act (i.e. “Democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding what’s for supper.”
7. In a republic, the individual is recognized and the individual has rights. To solve a problem, an individual may act individually, or through his or her representative. A REPUBLIC IS SELF GOVERNMENT.
8. Man's rights under a democracy type of government is not very secure.
Governments can change, or can be easily corrupted, and with the change, man's rights can disappear. (That which the government gives can also be taken away).
10. In a republic, rights are granted by the creator to the individual. They cannot be limited or taken away by anyone except the entity that gave the rights in the first place: in this case, the creator. Our government is supposed to protect those rights.
11. What did the founding fathers think of democracy? They thought it to be dangerous. After the Revolutionary War, our founders needed to form a government. Because democracy amounts to mob rule, or a mobocracy, they felt that a democracy would lead to tyranny of the individual.
12. At great cost, they had just recently freed themselves from the tyranny of King George. They weren’t about to establish a government that could easily become another tyrannical dictatorship. In Federalist #10 James Madison wrote:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
17. After the Constitutional Convention ended on Sep 18, 1787 (which determined our form of govt) Ben Franklin emerged from Independence Hall.
A Mrs Powell asked him “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
18. America was originally created as a Constitutional Republic with a Constitution made to restrict what the government could do and empower the States and the people—not the other way around!
19. In fact, if our founding fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.
@Anthrosunday@maewest52499669@JoeBenedett@realDonaldTrump 1. Try to keep up. My thread merely compiles 50 years of climate “science”. With links to veritfy. From the scientists themselves. It’s what THEY’VE said. Not me. All i did was compile it all.
For ex: The IPCC report that led to the KyotoProtocol was altered AFTER peer review to remove the comments about doubts w/which scientists had re global warming. wsj.com/articles/SB834…
@Anthrosunday@maewest52499669@JoeBenedett@realDonaldTrump The scientific statements omitted:
1)“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)“No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
@Souxieq2@BreakingNLive Signatories to the KyotoProtocol bought into the cap &trade concept in 2005 and now big CO2 is bigger than "big oil."
@Souxieq2@BreakingNLive What’s even more ridiculous is that the UN IPCC report that led to the Kyoto Protocol was altered AFTER peer review to remove the comments about doubts w/which scientists had regarding global warming claims. wsj.com/articles/SB834…
@Souxieq2@BreakingNLive CO2 was pretty steady when the Roman warm period, the cooler Dark Ages, Ice-Age, Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period happened, all natural climatic changes that far exceeds today's changes.
@Souxieq2@BreakingNLive If there was approx 25% less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now w/ temps throughout much of the world just as high (or higher) during those warm periods as they are now then there is nothing unnatural, unusual, or unprecedented about the current level of Earth’s warmth.
@Souxieq2@BreakingNLive FYI: Climatology/genetics/geology as well as many other scienctific fields owe their existence to govt research grants. Most scientists cant put food on their table w/o receiving grant money to conduct their research.
@the_insiderUKG Climatology/geology/genetics as well as many other scienctific fields owe their existence to govt research grants. Most scientists cant put food on their table w/o receiving grant money to conduct their research.
@the_insiderUKG When your existence depends on support from govts, it’s in your interest to conduct research in a way that supports the continuation of research in your chosen field.
Grants are awarded based on likelihood that a particular researcher will find evidence that supports a hypothesis
@the_insiderUKG The reality is that research grants are awarded based on likelihood that a particular researcher's work will support a political agenda or sociological viewpoint. If your work supports an agenda favored by those who control the $$$, you will continue receiving research grants.