The Minor Miracles of Democracy

The Presdients looked great. The first lady looked disturbed; probable thinking about the future Obama Library.

Per Estrich "Thursday was a critical day in our democracy." It was not. The truth is that Thursday will soon be forgotten.

Further, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional democratic Republic. There is a vital distinction that the left would prefer did not exist. Indeed the left would prefer that the constitutional Republic did not exist.

Per Estrich "They gathered together out of respect for the presidency of the United States."

That statement can, I think, be said to be true for four of the attendees, but not for the fifth. He had his own motives.

It is a real pity and a real tragedy for our Republic that the man who is the present holder of the Office of President has little respect for the Office, no respect for the Constitution that he has sworn to defend and protect and no respect for a republican form of Government.

It is a shame that the man presently holding the office of President has deliberately chosen, in pure Alinsky mode, to be a conscious divider and a conscious creator of race war, class war, gender war, and economic war in this once great and mostly united Republic. The question may be rightly asked as to what has the present incumbent done to unite. And the answer may be rightly given as nothing, nothing at all. Indeed he came to office determined to divide, to transform, to destroy and re make. And in that he is well on the path to success.

It is also a pity that the present political party he leads likewise has no respect for the Constitution its elected members have sworn to defend nor any respect for a republican form of Government but is instead content to be the enabler of the incumbent's conscious instigation of race war, class war, gender war, and economic war for its own redistributive political ends.

Per Estrich "How easy it is to forget — with the scream-a-thon among often ignorant pontificators that has come to dominate our political debate — that mutual respect and decency are what make our democracy work"

Mutual respect and decency tend to make things work. But mutual respect and decency are fragile things easily destroyed when faced with attack, lies, deceit, dishonesty, and theft. It is for these reasons that the left and its fellow travelers are, for me, intolerable. One wonders if Estrich has actually listened to the incumbent and his incessant vitriol and snarky attacks on the productive in this Republic, his attacks on success, his attacks on religion, free speech and the Bill of Rights. One wonders if she has listened to his intimidation of Congress and the Supreme Court, or listened to his lies upon lies, deceit upon deceit, cover up upon cover up. Lack of respect and decency begets the same in return.

However, this much can be agreed: George Bush was indeed a patriot as was his father and in their own way, I believe so too were Clinton and Carter.

Jon Stewart's appraisal: Disasterpiece Theatre.

The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.
As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”
With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it;” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic, but “a republic, if you can keep it.”
In view of the founders' ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

Ms. Estrichwrote:
"How easy it is to forget — with the scream-a-thon among often ignorant pontificators that has come to dominate our political debate — that mutual respect and decency are what make our democracy work....How easy it is to forget — in the battle to see who can destroy the other side first, fastest and most viciously — that we are all, ultimately, on the same side."

Agreed. Now, how do we get our senior politicians to act accordingly?

Re: Old Navy


We cannot all ultimately be on the same side when there is a sizable confederacy of the progressives, leftists, statists, Islamists, moochers, the entirety of this Administration et al , which has as its ultimate goal the destruction of the Republic and the destruction of a republican form of government.

That is the truth, like it or not!

JW stated: "We cannot all ultimately be on the same side when there is a sizable confederacy of the progressives, leftists, statists, Islamists, moochers, the entirety of this Administration et al , which has as its ultimate goal the destruction of the Republic and the destruction of a republican form of government."

We've had this debate before. Obviously, I don't agree. Your belief system seems to leave little room for anything but surrender or civil war. For now, I think I'll try to stay in the middle between those two extremes.

Re: Old Navy

You have already surrendered, you just don't know it yet.

JW wrote: "You have already surrendered, you just don't know it yet."

So you are for civil war?

Re: Old Navy
How precisely does it logically follow on from my assertion of your surrender, which I note you do not deny, that I am for civil war? Answer; It does not! The assertion is ludicrous.

I was going to respond to your last reply to me following on from Estrich's previous piece of nonsense pointing out your demonstrated lack of understanding of the proper use of the Latin non sequitur and your inability to spell the phrase properly but at that time I resisted.

However, some things just have to be done.

The positive assertion you reach above, to wit, that I am for civil war because of my assertion of your surrender is indeed a classic non sequitur, even if the assertion was posed as a question.

It is a conclusion posed as a question that does not follow in any way from the premises. It is a argument that takes the form if this is true, then that is true, which is always a non sequitur, and it is non sequitur even if the premises [your surrender] and the posed conclusion that I am for civil war are both true [ which they are not because I am not for civil war]. It is non sequitur because the conclusion you reach, even if posed as a question, is not a direct or any consequence of the original premises. I am uncertain if you will be any clearer after my explanation of this form of non sequitur (there are several) but you should be better informed. LOL !

Now as to civil war.

We have been in a cultural civil war for decades and that for decades conservatives have been losing. The left has declared war upon and is in the process of successfully destroying the notions of good and evil, of right and wrong, of moral and immoral and well on the way to substituting relativism and Godlessness. What about the class war, the gender war, the war on free speech for all, the war on freedom of religion, the war against the Bill of rights, the redistribution war on the successful, all instigated by the left ? Are these all not forms of non violent civil war waged by the left? I say they are!

You may not have noticed the cultural and other civil wars being waged against you in your seeming eagerness to "go along to get along" and in your seeming eagerness that our politicians do the same. I personally have no use for mealy mouthed politicians who will compromise principles because of PC or fear. The cultural civil war is a war that I am happy to fight. Seems that you are not. So be it.

Next, I could ponder about a real shooting civil war? I say please God forbid.

But, you may not have noticed but the Dept of Homeland Security has placed various categories of law abiding citizens on lists with terror groups, prime example being that Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are being so listed.

Further Obama's private army is buying up as much ammunition as it can [billions of hollow point bullets, which are rarely used in training] and has bought 2700 rubber wheeled urban tanks for use in American cities.

For use against precisely whom one asks? Do you ? It looks like our benevolent Government is arming up to quell or to put down what it alone deems as civil unrest.

But it seems that you are happy to ignore all this instead assert that I am for civil war ! LOL again !

I have no desire or wish at all for a real shooting civil war. I find the assertion that I am for a shooting civil war, if indeed that is your the assertion, to be preposterous and absurd but not at all surprising given the source.

JW stated: "How precisely does it logically follow on from my assertion of your surrender, which I note you do not deny, that I am for civil war? Answer; It does not! The assertion is ludicrous."

You, as always, are terminally confused. My sentence had a a question mark (i.e. A '?' symbol at the end of it). That would make my remark a question, not an 'assertion'. I was trying to drag some sort of rational explanation of how I've surrendered out of you. You failed the test again. You just repeat that because I don't agree with you, I've surrendered.

JW also stated: " I was going to respond to your last reply to me following on from Estrich's previous piece of nonsense pointing out your demonstrated lack of understanding of the proper use of the Latin non sequitur and your inability to spell the phrase properly but at that time I resisted."

Again, you are very confused. A 'non sequitor' is a statement or conclusion that doesn't follow from the 'logic' of an argument. Your 'assertion' that I've surrendered is a classic example. No facts to back it up. I've 'surrendered' because I don't agree with you. No real explanation of what I'm supposed to do instead to negate my 'surrender'. No explanation of why you are correct. Just lots of unproven, illogical assertions.

Next time, explain why you don't use 'straw man' arguments. I bet you'll be wrong about that too...

Re: Old Navy
Ever heard of the rule of holes? It goes this way,when you have gotten yourself into a hole stop digging. You should learn to stop digging.

Let's have a quick look at your latest excavation.

You say that your purpose in saying " so you are for civil war? " with a question mark, which I clearly had noticed and expressly dealt with in my response, was to drag an explanation from me as to the reasons underlying my assertion of your surrender. Tut tut! That simply does not ring true.

If that was your purpose then why not simply pose the direct question, which would go something like in what way do you suggest I have surrendered ?

No your purpose was and remains transparent and was to try to elicit a response from me in favor of conflict and to do so by the use of an illogical non sequitur assertion amateurishly and unartfully dressed up as question.

A question, if a question was intended so as to elicit my view on civil war would have been; are you in favor of civil war ? and not the conclusion/ assertion so you are in favor of civil war ? The assertion was derived from your previous piece of nonsense, to wit, that my belief system seemed to leave little room for anything but surrender or civil war.
What you now display is the craven " hey I was not asserting anything I was just asking a question " ploy in order to provide the cover to bolt back to your corner when confronted. Keep on bolting!

Further, it seems that you have gone away and found a basic definition of non sequitur (I note the continuing incorrect spelling) but you might want to expand your understanding and look to the recognized categories of non sequitur, you will find that I was and remain correct.

As to your surrender I do not have to raise argument. You have done it for me. You have set forth, in your previous posts, all that is needed from which your surrender to PC and to the appeasement of those that would destroy our constitutional republican form of government may be correctly inferred. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If you are comfortable with it, that is your prerogative. I would not dream of interfering with that prerogative by suggesting how you should negate it. That is a matter entirely for you to ponder. But, if negating is your goal then finding your own solution should not be difficult.

Finally your response and questions and typical failure to address substance indicates that I was also correct to suggest that after each of my responses you would become better informed but remain no wiser. LOL!

JW wrote: "No your purpose was and remains transparent and was to try to elicit a response from me in favor of conflict and to do so by the use of an illogical non sequitur assertion amateurishly and unartfully dressed up as question."

Wrong again. My purpose was just what I said it was. Your arguing against a straw man, not me.

JW further wrote:"Further, it seems that you have gone away and found a basic definition of non sequitur (I note the continuing incorrect spelling) but you might want to expand your understanding and look to the recognized categories of non sequitur, you will find that I was and remain correct.

From the dictionary: Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

I'm afraid that definition fits your arguments all too well. I still haven't heard from you a simple explanation (backed up by actual facts) of why you think I've surrendered to "PC". You just say that you know that I have. Sorry, but with no logical content in your argument, you are going to have a hard time showing that your conclusion follows from your premises.

Lastly JW further wrote: "As to your surrender I do not have to raise argument. You have done it for me. You have set forth, in your previous posts, all that is needed from which your surrender to PC and to the appeasement of those that would destroy our constitutional republican form of government may be correctly inferred. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If you are comfortable with it, that is your prerogative. I would not dream of interfering with that prerogative by suggesting how you should negate it. That is a matter entirely for you to ponder. But, if negating is your goal then finding your own solution should not be difficult."

I haven't surrendered or appeased anyone. This is just your simple interpretation of my refusal to join you in belittling anyone you don't agree with. I don't think that calling names and bullying others is necessary to avoid surrendering to the forces of "PC". I quite often make arguments on this blog that definitely are not PC (e.g., Anti Women in Combat, Anti single sex marriage, Anti Gun Control, etc...). How convenient you've forgotten that.

Again, your arguing against a straw man, not my views.

Re: Old Navy
Just keep digging. Maybe I shall in future think of you, without malice, as Mole Navy.
See you managed to get the spelling of non sequitur correct at the third attempt. Well done ! Paying attention at last. But I see you would not go further than a very basic dictionary definition. Still never mind. Your loss.
I have made my points and clearly they have struck home. As I have said to you before in the words of Ben Franklin " the sting of reproach is the truth of it."

JW wrote: "Just keep digging. Maybe I shall in future think of you, without malice, as Mole Navy...See you managed to get the spelling of non sequitur correct at the third attempt. Well done ! Paying attention at last. But I see you would not go further than a very basic dictionary definition. Still never mind. Your loss."

The only person digging himself in deeper here is you. You've been asked both directly and indirectly several times now to produce a coherent argument, supported by evidence, detailing your pronouncement that I've surrendered to "PC". All you can do in response is call me a silly name ('Mole Navy') and point out a misspelling on my part that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your response couldn't have been better designed to prove my points about your debate techniques and your use of logical fallacies. Thank you for your unintended support!

JW and ON
Your back and forth spat aren't read by the rest of us. You're both getting off the point - the ARTICLE!!
Sounds like two elitist professors in a debate class. Wrong forum!!

Re: Old Navy
Ok then, we go full circle, actual surrender or willingness to surrender (the end effect is the same) to PC and/or to progressivism and or its ideals can be recognized thus: it looks like refusal, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to acknowledge (and you have expressly above in your second post refused to so acknowledge) that there is a real enemy of freedom and of constitutional governance out there, with which those of a conservative or republican mindset, cannot ultimately be on the same side.

Because as history teaches, that enemy will not relent in any way, in any facet of its ideology, in order to ultimately be on the same side as it, then one must relent, compromise and indeed surrender.

That enemy of freedom and of republican governance is the sizable confederacy/axis of progressives, leftists, statists, Islamists, moochers, illegals, nihilists, the Democratic Party, the entirety of this Administration et al , which has as its common ultimate goal the destruction of the Republic and the destruction of a republican form of government.

It is that axis of destruction with which you say would seek accommodation at high political level. There is no acceptable accommodation with it, if the Republic is to be preserved.

JW wrote: "That enemy of freedom and of republican governance is the sizable confederacy/axis of progressives, leftists, statists, Islamists, moochers, illegals, nihilists, the Democratic Party, the entirety of this Administration et al , which has as its common ultimate goal the destruction of the Republic and the destruction of a republican form of government...It is that axis of destruction with which you say would seek accommodation at high political level. There is no acceptable accommodation with it, if the Republic is to be preserved."

Thank you for providing a smoking gun confirming my original observation concern your belief system. From comment No. 7: "We've had this debate before. Obviously, I don't agree. Your belief system seems to leave little room for anything but surrender or civil war. For now, I think I'll try to stay in the middle between those two extremes."

If I had it to write over again, I'd drop the "seems to" part of the statement.

OT wrote: "You're both getting off the point - the ARTICLE!! Sounds like two elitist professors in a debate class. Wrong forum!!"

I don't think this argument is off point at all. In the end, this blog was about tolerance of alternate viewpoints. However, you probably are correct about the forum.